Feed on Posts or Comments 09 February 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 19 May 2013 12:18 am

When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane

There is an image on Reddit this week that can be found here and here. The author is Christopher Pool and it says:

Put a steak on the ground in front of a dog.
Tell the dog not to eat the steak.
If the dog eats it, punish [the dog] and every other dog you own and ever will own.
God is great.

Impregnate a dog with your son.
Have your half dog half human son tell your other dogs how loving you are.
Let your other dogs torture and kill your half dog half human son.
Afterwards, forgive them for eating your steak in the first place.
Despite forgiveness, continue to punish every dog you will ever own.
Revive the half dog half human corpse and let it live in your house.
God is great.

Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

531 Responses to “When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane”

  1. on 19 May 2013 at 7:21 pm 1.Biff said …

    Hmm, people do wicked thugs so God does not exist? Nope, disproven time and time again.

    Wicked people is why Jesus came.

  2. on 19 May 2013 at 7:37 pm 2.DPK said …

    ummm… what exactly was disprove, there Biffer?

    That people do wicked things? Or that god does not exist?

    I’d be interested in seeing how either of these claims was disproved.

  3. on 19 May 2013 at 8:42 pm 3.alex said …

    “Why would anyone believe such nonsense?”

    because the second edition would be the greatest ever! watch how the evil men rape Lot’s virgin daughters as offered. then, the men proceed to violently ravish god’s angels as they hid, shivering in the broom closet. if not for angelic feathers sticking out of the closet door, the evil men would have never found them. god has a wicked sense of humor.

    wait, there’s more! see how god’s army descends from the heavens and smite those barbaric mooslums as they plead uselessly to their nonexistent god! wait, is it the other way around?

    “people do wicked thugs so God does not exist?”

    nope. god doesn’t exist even as you say it over and over again, dorothy.

  4. on 19 May 2013 at 9:31 pm 4.Anonymous said …

    Biffer, you deliberately ignored the question and went off an a diversionary tantrum. Perhaps its uncomfortable for you to be faced with just how ridiculous your beliefs are?

    Let’s repeat the question and have your answer.

    Biffer, just why do you believe such obvious nonsense as contained in the bible? What’s wrong with you that you subscribe to tribal fairy stories? Please explain without red-herrings and diversions.

  5. on 19 May 2013 at 11:16 pm 5.the messenger said …

    3.alex, are you idiotic?

    Lot new that those men were not attracted to females , and therefore knew that they would not rape her. And they did not get raped.

  6. on 19 May 2013 at 11:18 pm 6.the messenger said …

    3.alex, the word Muslim is not in the bible.

    Stupid.

  7. on 19 May 2013 at 11:28 pm 7.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.

    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets.

  8. on 19 May 2013 at 11:48 pm 8.alex said …

    somebody must have laid out the idiot bait. predictably, messenger motherfucker, comes sniffing about. what part of the “second edition” is the confusing part? my bad. it’s the idiot messenger, the self proclaimed personal bible translator. he, the idiot, who even the thiests ignore, who says, hell is temporary.

    you deny it, you asshole? look it up your damn self. your fecal posts are all over the place.

  9. on 20 May 2013 at 12:20 am 9.Biff said …

    I think his name is Christopher Fool. That was the stupidest thing I ever read. Well, other when I read alexs posts.

  10. on 20 May 2013 at 1:53 am 10.DPK said …

    Biff, it’s ok you totally miss the point. The title of the thread, after all is ” When INTELLIGENT people look at religion RATIONALLY…” We understand that disqualifies you from the discussion.

  11. on 20 May 2013 at 4:24 am 11.Anonymous said …

    Biff, we are still waiting.

    Just why do you believe the nonsense that is the bible?

  12. on 20 May 2013 at 5:16 am 12.A said …

    I think Chris is alex’s puppet. How did that become a thread? Slow atheist news cycle. Why not stat one on Dawkins chauvinism?

  13. on 20 May 2013 at 7:10 am 13.Fluttershy said …

    A, why do you have an obsession of claim others of yourself are sock puppets?
    We know for a fact that you have several sock puppets, the atheists here?, i honestly don’t know, but i assume that because there is no need for us to have puppets, the fact that we debate fairly, and there is no need for setting people up, we have no puppets.

    ” When INTELLIGENT people look at religion RATIONALLY…”
    /\
    this is the title of this blog post, and i agree with it, rational, intelligent people would see how stupid the bible is, theists on the other hand may be intelligent, but they are too brainwashed to see how disgusting it is.

  14. on 20 May 2013 at 10:40 am 14.freddies_dead said …

    12.A said …

    Why not sta[r]t one on Dawkins chauvinism?

    What has Dawkins’ chauvinism got to do with you believing the nonsense served up in the Bible?

  15. on 20 May 2013 at 11:24 am 15.The messenger said …

    5.the messenger said …

    3.alex, are you idiotic?

    Lot new that those men were not attracted to females , and therefore knew that they would not rape her. And they did not get raped.

    on 19 May 2013 at 11:18 pm 6.the messenger said …

    3.alex, the word Muslim is not in the bible.

    Stupid.

    on 19 May 2013 at 11:28 pm 7.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.

    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets

  16. on 20 May 2013 at 11:31 am 16.The messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.

    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets

  17. on 20 May 2013 at 12:03 pm 17.Fluttershy said …

    Another useless diversion that leads us no further into the debate of whether or not god exists….

  18. on 20 May 2013 at 12:33 pm 18.A said …

    Butterfly,

    sigh! Butter, if you had read the thread you would know who Chris was. Hint: Its NOT a poster! Lol!! My post is about the topic and was given tongue-in-cheek. (look it up)

    kids!

    Normally ignore that but just too funny.

  19. on 20 May 2013 at 1:23 pm 19.Fluttershy said …

    :|
    I was also referring to the multiple times you have accused yourself or others as being sock puppets…

    “kids!”
    …wut?

    Your post was complete garbage and the threads post was completely valid in terms of comparison.

  20. on 20 May 2013 at 2:18 pm 20.Scourge said …

    This Biffoon fellow is quite something. The aggressive ignorance is entertaining. Do you think he is using the novel “Biff” as inspiration for his moniker? If he thinks that book is worthwhile, that might explain his insipid comments.

  21. on 20 May 2013 at 6:07 pm 21.A said …

    Lol!!! Fitefly I am the one calling others sock puppets? LOL!! The idea came from you atheists who waste time on the diversion. I figured if I accept the label you guys might be satisfied.

    But your posts directed me to stay on topic and the dopey Chris was part of the topic. Try clicking the link Firefly before you type out another diversion.

  22. on 20 May 2013 at 7:16 pm 22.Lou said …

    What does a pregnant dog eating meat and getting punished have to do with any religion? Was Christopher part of some satanic cult?

    “”i assume that because there is no need for us to have puppets, the fact that we debate fairly””

    In order to debate you must have a position. No atheist here on this forum anyway, ever supports any position. Fairly is laughable since atheist cannot define fair.

  23. on 20 May 2013 at 7:37 pm 23.DPK said …

    21.A said …
    “But your posts directed me to stay on topic and the dopey Chris was part of the topic.”

    The fact that you think “dopey Chris” was part of the topic says a lot about your inability to think clearly… which actually IS part of the topic, so in a very round about way, I suppose… so thank you for illustrating the point so well.

    and then 22.Lou said …
    “What does a pregnant dog eating meat and getting punished have to do with any religion? Was Christopher part of some satanic cult?”

    Yup folks, you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

  24. on 20 May 2013 at 7:51 pm 24.Xenon said …

    Click the link labeled “here” at the top. Some of the most brain dead commentary one you will ever read. Why are those who claim God is not real the most possessed by the topic? Those who believe don’t discuss it as much.

  25. on 20 May 2013 at 9:09 pm 25.the messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets. Answer me.

  26. on 20 May 2013 at 11:00 pm 26.alex said …

    “Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these”

    why? so you can make up more fantastically unbelievable fucking shit? according to your moronic, idiot, mind, hell is but a temporary place. with statements like that, how can anybody even take you seriously? go home and read your bible and quit making up excuses for the crazy shit. bears mauling youths, oh my!

  27. on 20 May 2013 at 11:51 pm 27.alex said …

    “Why are those who claim God is not real the most possessed by the topic?”

    coz this is an atheist site, you dumbshit?

    “Those who believe don’t discuss it as much.”

    because most of your dipshit breathren spill their drivel and move on. you, otoh, insist on taking nonsensical potshots with what you think are clever retorts. look again. you have nothing to disprove your bullshit god.

    just like an ayetiist, i don’t have to prove my disbelief, you moron.

  28. on 21 May 2013 at 12:29 am 28.DPK said …

    I HAVE noticed that those who believe are very loath to “discuss” it. Instead, they make unfounded claims and then demand others disprove them. They never answer questions, or debate points with anything close to honesty or integrity.
    No surprise, religious belief does not hold up well to “discussion”.

  29. on 21 May 2013 at 12:43 am 29.Anonymous said …

    26.alex, if tom can not back up his claims with facts, they will be deemed as nonsense.

    A claim without facts has no value, therefore thomas’s statements have no value and should be ignored.

    Alex how stupid are you?

    I know what all of the bible verses mean, you do not.

  30. on 21 May 2013 at 12:43 am 30.the messenger said …

    26.alex, if tom can not back up his claims with facts, they will be deemed as nonsense.
    A claim without facts has no value, therefore thomas’s statements have no value and should be ignored.
    Alex how stupid are you?
    I know what all of the bible verses mean, you do not .

  31. on 21 May 2013 at 12:49 am 31.the messenger said …

    28.DPK, I have dis proven all of your claims, and I am always honest on this site.

    I have shown you proof, and you continue to deny it.
    You are a fool for not realizing that GOD exists.

  32. on 21 May 2013 at 1:00 am 32.Lou said …

    “I HAVE noticed that those who believe are very loath to “discuss” it.”

    Discuss what? A dog who ate some meet and got punished for it? I don’t believe any of that nonsense.

    Is this the equivalent of an Atheist Haiku?

  33. on 21 May 2013 at 1:33 am 33.alex said …

    “alex, if tom can not back up his claims with facts, they will be deemed as nonsense.”

    moron, didn’t you say hell was temporary? when I say bullshit, i don’t have to back it up, you idiot. it’s up to you to prove that it’s not bullshit. where the fuck you from? oh, i fergit. from disneyland.

    “A dog who ate some meet and got punished for it? I don’t believe any of that nonsense.”

    then, don’t motherfucker. even though you pulled it out of context, i’ll let you have it. now about your bullshit god?

  34. on 21 May 2013 at 1:49 am 34.alex said …

    “I have shown you proof, and you continue to deny it.”

    hell is temporary you say? har! you’ll never live it down. change your moniker from messenger? try it. atheists can sniff that bullshit a mile away. of course, you can’t or unable to change your writing style. you are after all, drawing upon your limited comprehension or logical abilities, you asshole.

  35. on 21 May 2013 at 1:55 am 35.s0l0m0n said …

    Those who thinks(boast) that they(atheists) are intelligent are the insane one.

    How come the wondrous creations around them are not triggered by some very very powerful, intelligent deity?

  36. on 21 May 2013 at 3:17 am 36.DPK said …

    See what I mean? Rather than address the actual issue of an insane story about a god who punishes everyone forever for a “sin” the first humans supposedly committed, which he created them to do, knowing full well they would do it, and then fathered himself as a human so he could sacrafice himself to himself to appease himself for this “sin”. Which is crazy stupid… They pretend we’re talking about dogs as a way to be coy, try to look clever, but it’s really about avoiding the issue actually brought up by the post?
    See how it works? They simply will not respond to the topic, but will tap dance around and say, “pay no attention to he man behind the curtain!”

  37. on 21 May 2013 at 4:53 am 37.Anonymous said …

    Of course they will dance around the subject. What kind of fool believes the bible to be anything but the ramblings of primitive goat-herders? Oh, wait, that would be Christians…

  38. on 21 May 2013 at 7:16 am 38.Fluttershy said …

    Lou said…
    “”i assume that because there is no need for us to have puppets, the fact that we debate fairly””
    In order to debate you must have a position. No atheist here on this forum anyway, ever supports any position. Fairly is laughable since atheist cannot define fair.”

    HA
    Its almost as if you are from some dimension where everything is the opposite

  39. on 21 May 2013 at 11:24 am 39.Lou said …

    Flutter

    No. Not it st all. Just guys who believe and support nothing. There is only a small number of yo.

    DPK,

    Oh, this is an atheist analogy. Its a ver bad analogy. So what is the meat? Do atheists believe God foes not allow us to eat?

  40. on 21 May 2013 at 12:16 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    Lou, please prove that your god exists.

  41. on 21 May 2013 at 12:48 pm 41.Fluttershy said …

    “Oh, this is an atheist analogy. Its a ver bad analogy. So what is the meat? Do atheists believe God foes not allow us to eat?”

    Holy po po on a stick, you are THAT ignorant? O,o

    the meat represents the garden of eden fruit that eve had no control over her actions because god planned for her to eat it and her instinct as human made her curious.

    Later the torture of the dog that was made by the guy is jesus and somehow that made all the sins go away, despite sins still being existant and god killing people and stuff.

    “Flutter
    No. Not it st all. Just guys who believe and support nothing. There is only a small number of yo.”

    Honestly, i cant read this, if any one here can get a message out of it, please post it…
    If your trying to say that atheists dont support anything, then you are blatantly wrong and right at the same time, some atheists dont support anything, others do.
    Unlike religions, every atheist is different, has their own beliefs, the only thing they share is the disbelief of god, who is imaginary.

  42. on 21 May 2013 at 2:38 pm 42.DPK said …

    “Unlike religions, every atheist is different, has their own beliefs, the only thing they share is the disbelief of god, who is imaginary.”

    You are forgetting the 21% of atheists who actually do believe in god, much like the 18% of dead people who are still alive.

    38.Lou said …

    “Oh, this is an atheist analogy.”
    Brilliant.

    “Its a ver bad analogy. So what is the meat?”
    Think it over. Come back when you get a clue. Otherwise its really kind of like discussing politics with a clam. Easy to win the argument, but really kind of pointless.

  43. on 21 May 2013 at 4:05 pm 43.Lou said …

    Flutter,

    Meat represents fruit in the garden? My memory recalls that all the trees were OK for eating. Even the vines and bushes. One tree was off limits. God told human beings not to break this one rule.

    Hardly an analogy to a dog who has meat thrown in front of him. Do you view yourself this way? Come on, are you this far gone?

  44. on 21 May 2013 at 4:05 pm 44.Scourge said …

    Thank the atmosphere for a timely reminder of the benevolence of GAWD. I suppose the GAWD fearing part is alive and well in OK. Where was Jesus? How many of the folks who were either killed or had their lives wrecked were praying to Jesus as the tornado ripped through? No doubt there will be prayer vigils galore.

    And remember folks, man-made global warming is purely a fiction created by the 98% of climate scientists who aren’t in the employ of fossil carbon industries or suffering from debilitating delusion. Why doesn’t OK Sens. Inhofe or Coburn pray down some salvation for OK?

  45. on 21 May 2013 at 4:10 pm 45.Lou said …

    Flutter,

    Your analysis of the Dog and Jesus is a mess. You need to try again or maybe it is just a lack of knowledge.

    Curious, were you the guy who put his hand in fire even though you were warned not to because it would burn you?

  46. on 21 May 2013 at 4:13 pm 46.Lou said …

    Oh no, another gobal warming conspiracy theorist. Just like a good liberal, politicize every tragedy possible.

    Tornados are not global warming. They happened before the Industrial Revolution.

  47. on 21 May 2013 at 4:43 pm 47.DPK said …

    46.Lou said …
    “Tornados are not global warming. They happened before the Industrial Revolution.”

    That’s right, they are punishment from god. No doubt some of those 3rd graders were gonna grow up to be homos, or worse yet, liberals. So Jesus smitted them pre-emptively. God is great! Or maybe it’s Allah showing us who’s god is real.

    Now Louie… back to your garden of eden myth. Are you one of those christians who doesn’t believe god is all powerful and all knowing? Straighten us out, when god put the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden, did he not know full well exactly what would happen? Indeed, did he not plan it that way? If you know that dogs eat meat, do you blame the dog for eating the meat that you put in front of him? Or would a more intelligent being say, “Well, if I put the meat in front of the dog and he eats it, like I KNOW he will, it’s actually MY fault for instigating the problem.” Is your god really that clueless?

    I guess maybe you don’t like being compared to a dog, is that it? The whole common ancestor thing bothers you immensely. I know you crazy ass self absorbed theist prefer to think the entire universe was created just for you.

    Well, how about a child then? You folks always love to use the father/children analogy for your imaginary god.
    If you put a child in a room with a tasty treat and tell them not to eat it, knowing full well that they will eat it when you aren’t looking, and when in fact, you have planned for them to eat it… do you then punish the child, and ALL that child’s descendants for untold generations for eating the treat? No? Why not, Louie?

  48. on 21 May 2013 at 7:58 pm 48.Lou said …

    Hmm, D lets examine your logic. God lays down one rule yet he is unfair. Sounds like a typical liberal. BTW, how do u know the fruit was tasty? Please don’t reproduce. The child won’t like the rules and will whine.

    Second, God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey. Again D, don’t reproduce even if you find a woman. I promise your child will disobey. I like how this going.

    I blame no dog for eating meat. I expect it and I’m good with it. They are like liberals.

  49. on 21 May 2013 at 8:03 pm 49.A said …

    I had to buy tires today. I blame global cooling/warming (pick one) and want Obama to reimburse me. I hear the cooling theory is back and want to cover my bases.

    DIP not reproducing sounds like a great action plan.

  50. on 21 May 2013 at 8:18 pm 50.the messenger said …

    34.alex, you have very bad grammer, and are small minded.

  51. on 21 May 2013 at 8:38 pm 51.michael said …

    haha. great post.

    how stupid is the idea of original sin?

    im gonna create something…but im gonna make it sick. yep…i want my creatures to be innatly flawed and to spend all their time trying to undo the damage i inflicted upon them.

  52. on 21 May 2013 at 8:44 pm 52.michael said …

    hey messenger man.

    why arent you muslim?

  53. on 21 May 2013 at 9:52 pm 53.alex said …

    lou. you, messenger, and s0l must be long lost twins. that’s right, three of you motherfuckers makes twins. makes about as much sense as the shit you spout.

  54. on 21 May 2013 at 11:41 pm 54.DPK said …

    48.Lou said …

    “Hmm, D lets examine your logic. God lays down one rule yet he is unfair. Sounds like a typical liberal.”

    I know your ADD must be kicking, but try to focus Lou. I don’t know if your god is a liberal… I doubt it, I don’t think many liberals tolerate slavery and misogamy the way your god does… on the other hand he DID instruct you to sell everything you own and give it to the poor, so I’m not sure. But that’s not the point.
    Stop dodging the question and tell us the truth, according to your god legend, did your god know in advance that Eve would eat the forbidden fruit, or not? Did the events unfold exactly as he planned for them to unfold, or did they not?
    I mean it’s either yes, or no. Your god either is 100% responsible for the downfall of humanity, or he is impotent and incompetent… which is it? What kind of a god blames his creation for doing exactly what he wanted them to do?

  55. on 21 May 2013 at 11:57 pm 55.Anonymous said …

    Hmmm, God is 100% responsible although he gave specific instruction not to eat? I know liberals hate personal responsibility but you need to explain. He warned and explained the consequences.

    You might want to refrain from insults. It makes you look childish and petty

  56. on 22 May 2013 at 12:17 am 56.alex said …

    “You might want to refrain from insults. It makes you look childish and petty”

    says the delusional, moron, who’s god is “pleased by the odor of burning flesh”. you’re not petty, you’re a hypocrite. even the idiot suicide bombers demonstrate more conviction than you morons.

  57. on 22 May 2013 at 12:24 am 57.Lou said …

    I meant to add, God did not instruct me to sell everything. He spoke directly to one rich man to do so who wanted to follow. Don’t be so delusional and ignorant of what you hate. That is what happens when you get all your talking points from blogs.

    Thinking for yourself is advisable DPK.

  58. on 22 May 2013 at 12:39 am 58.alex said …

    “He spoke directly to one rich man to do so who wanted to follow.”

    that’s rich. all these motherfuckers that have been preaching to “give all your money…” are wrong? who the fuck are you? you and messenger are god’s designated interpreter? lot offered his daughters because he knew the men preferred the angels? this is messenger, your brother’s interpretation. you agree?

  59. on 22 May 2013 at 1:17 am 59.Anonymous said …

    Lou with a bit of (tongue in cheek?) IRONY

    He spoke directly to one rich man to do so who wanted to follow. Don’t be so delusional and ignorant

    So you think that a god ACTUALLY spoke to someone? And you’re calling them delusional? WOW!!!
    Lou, if you hear of someone saying that god spoke to them, it’s a sign they may be delusional or having mental issues. Not judging, just saying….

    Or are you talking about the god that spoke frequently with our ancient sheep and goat herder cousins? You know, the ones who borrowed the bible stories from even earlier cultures.

  60. on 22 May 2013 at 1:29 am 60.DPK said …

    Well, first, if an engineer designs a car so that the shells fall off when it goes around a corner, is it the cars fault when the wheels come off, or the engineer who made the car that way?

    2 nd… Yeah, people asked Jesus how to get to heaven. He, knowing his words would be recorded as his message to humanity said, “we’ll… THAT GUY OVER THERE has to sell everything he has and give it to the poor. The rest of you, fuck that!”
    Sure.

    Last… Answer the question. Did the events you claim occurred in the garden of Eden story unfold according to gods plan, or not? Did not god KNOW that eve would be fooled by the talking snake when he put the forbidden fruit, as well as the talking snake, there in the first place?
    Hint, the answer is either yes or no.

  61. on 22 May 2013 at 2:09 am 61.Lou said …

    Oh Anony Mouse Maximus, you and your diversions. Your puppet actually made the claim first so you and your puppet are both deluded, secluded and booted.
    Then again he did not even know Jesus said it.

    Bye bye find another place to take your diversions.

  62. on 22 May 2013 at 2:32 am 62.alex said …

    “Bye bye find another place to take your diversions.”

    wah, busted again? you’ll be back, moron.

    When intelligent people look at religion rationally, religion is clearly insane, which clearly, you haven’t done dick to prove otherwise.

    you did prove the insane part though. believing that god speaks to people? you’ll agree that the suicide bombers are insane? how do you discern the crazies? you or anybody else can’t, because once again there’s no standard/metric. hearing god is crazy, you moron.

  63. on 22 May 2013 at 2:45 am 63.Anonymous said …

    Oh my! From Lou’s desperate attempts to avoid the question it’s blatantly obvious that he believes the bible to be true. That is so cute!

    Lou, so you believe in talking snakes and donkeys, men who can live in fishes, 500 year old boat builders, and a host of other assorted nonsense. It’s delusional but cute in the way that a 5 year-old tells you about their imaginary friends.

    Speaking of which, here’s another question you seem to afraid to tackle. It won’t go away though.

    Provide proof that your god exists. Let’s see you attempt to show that you are not delusional.

  64. on 22 May 2013 at 2:49 am 64.Anonymous said …

    Lou, OH Lou

    God did not instruct me to sell everything. He spoke directly to one rich man

    he did not even know Jesus said it.

    Neither did you!! LOL!!!

    You believe this though? A god speaking to you? Do your family a favour – Hide the sharp objects in the house and seek help if you start hearing “THE VOICE” of a god demanding you to do things.

  65. on 22 May 2013 at 7:03 am 65.Fluttershy said …

    God has apparently spoken to you, this proves nothing without physical evidence.
    I can claim that the blue oyster that is in my closet is speaking to me, doesnt prove anything.

    If you have anything interesting to post, please do.

  66. on 22 May 2013 at 11:07 am 66.A said …

    Physical evidence Flutter? Is this measuring stick to prove everything?

    Well alright then. Prove Socrates existed.

    What is the oyster saying Butterfly.

    Lou

    Ignore the troll that is Anti Mouse. He asks loaded questions to save his fellow atheist. Watch him scramble to save Butterfly.

  67. on 22 May 2013 at 11:32 am 67.Fluttershy said …

    “Well alright then. Prove Socrates existed.”
    This is irrelevant to the god exist/god is fake topic.

    “What is the oyster saying Butterfly.”
    How the heck am i meant to know? he speaks german.

  68. on 22 May 2013 at 11:38 am 68.The messenger said …

    63.Anonymous, there are no talking snakes or donkies in the bible.

    The word “snake” is used to lable sneaky, dishonest, unholy, corrupt people such as satin.

    The ark was build by supplies and tools that GOD gave to noah and his family.

    And it was built more than 500 hundered years ago. You idiotic snake.

  69. on 22 May 2013 at 11:44 am 69.The messenger said …

    60.DPK, GOD did not mean that we have to sell everything that we own. he told that guy to sell everything because he loved his material possesions more than he love GOD.

    That bible passage means that we should not love our material possesions, we should love GOD.

  70. on 22 May 2013 at 11:52 am 70.A said …

    Don”t dodge the question Butterfly. If we are suppose to be provide physical evidence for God then you should be able to do it for such a well known figure as Socrates. You asking others to do what you will not?
    Get Oyster yo help you.

  71. on 22 May 2013 at 11:59 am 71.Lou said …

    DPK is now comparing us to cars. The ignorance is so thick it is hard to see. At least dogs have a brain!

    Does the car make the choice to kick off the wheels? Typical liberal, sue the company, blame someone else for their choices.

  72. on 22 May 2013 at 12:03 pm 72.alex said …

    pulling out the tired, old, wild goose chase again, with the socrates variation, eh? using your bullshit standard of evidence, allah, the hundreds of hindu gods, ra, and others all exist, you morons.

    as s0l says, y’all will wake up in hell. you’ll wonder where are all the atheists? that’s because you worshiped the wrong god.

  73. on 22 May 2013 at 12:47 pm 73.michael said …

    any theists feel like addressing the main point of the blog? that got seemingly hates amputees? why do you think god refuses to heal people who have lost limbs?

  74. on 22 May 2013 at 1:24 pm 74.Fluttershy said …

    because god is
    A: an asshole
    or
    B: immaginary

  75. on 22 May 2013 at 1:27 pm 75.Fluttershy said …

    68.A said …
    Don”t dodge the question Butterfly. If we are suppose to be provide physical evidence for God then you should be able to do it for such a well known figure as Socrates. You asking others to do what you will not?
    Get Oyster yo help you.

    What question?
    You mean to one that has nothing to do with the topic?
    No, i refuse to answer a question that should not be asked.
    How about you answer this question of you feel like asking stupid questions.
    Show me proof that allah could pull a can of whoopass on your god?

    Again, the talking oyster that i have no evidence for is mute, and speaks german, how do i know? Because i said so, so you must believe me.

    Would you kindly answer why god doesn’t heal amputees?

  76. on 22 May 2013 at 2:06 pm 76.A said …

    Butterfly believes Socrates existed but cannot provide proof. Therefore your request that physical proof must be provided to prove God’s existence is moot. You are right. Your question has zero to do with the topic. You have no grasp concerning the nature of evidence.

  77. on 22 May 2013 at 2:27 pm 77.Anonymous said …

    “A” (aka Lou) makes an attempt at a diversion but in doing so he concedes that he cannot prove the existence of his god. He must be doing that by virtue of his attempted analogy.

    So, “A” admits he cannot prove his god exists. What does that tell us?

    Well, “A” bases his life on the teachings on someone he concedes he cannot know is real. He worships someone he concedes he cannot know is real. He claims to derive morality and values from someone he cannot know is real. He has a “relationship” with someone he cannot know is real.

    Thus, “A” concedes that he is delusional.

  78. on 22 May 2013 at 2:38 pm 78.DPK said …

    Like a carnival magician, “A” attempts to distract attention away from his inability to explain his god, or provide evidence he actually exists.
    Socrates? Again? Really, I don’t recall anyone here making any claims about Socrates. And you deride us for bringing up Santa? You are just full of silliness. Socrates is dead. You claim your god is alive and intercedes in the physical world on a daily basis. That should be simple to demonstrate. What’s the problem?

    Now, I notice again you refuse to answer any direct questions about your god and your beliefs… why?
    “Did the events you claim occurred in the garden of Eden story unfold according to gods plan, or not? Did not god KNOW that eve would be fooled by the talking snake when he put the forbidden fruit, as well as the talking snake, there in the first place?
    Hint, the answer is either yes or no.”

    Notice that whether posting as Ass, Lou, Biff, Boz, or Hor… none of them ever answer the simplest of questions.

  79. on 22 May 2013 at 5:10 pm 79.A said …

    Look Butterfly, you had two come to your defense. Prove them wrong. Show us physical proof for Socrates existence. In order to be true it must exist.

  80. on 22 May 2013 at 5:56 pm 80.the messenger said …

    h52.michael, here are the reasons.

    The lies of Mohammad

    I say on to you people now, the Quran is unholy and false.

    Here is the proof that will compel you to believe the statement above.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe.)
    This appalling, verse compels people to loose faith in non believers. It states that nonbelievers cannot be taught the truth. This is an appalling, disgusting lie. All people can be compelled to believe in the truth: but he Quran states that they cannot be helped. The Quran compels people to loose faith in others. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.)
    As you now see, the Quran depicts God as a wrathful, unforgiving lunatic. This is wrong. God is not wrathful of hateful; but the Quran depicts him as a cruel tyrant. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.)
    The Quran states that instead of showing mercy and forgiving sinners, Allah will increase their evil and punish them for it. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.
    Instead of trying to help corrupt people become better, the Quran depicts that GOD mocks them mocks them, instead of helping them. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse.
    Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see.
    Deaf, Dum, and blind – so they will not return [to the right path].
    The Quran says that GOD will take away any chance of redemption. It says that GOD will not help those people. Instead of helping them, the Quran states that GOD will abandon them. The Quran is false.
    The Quran states the following verses.
    I design for you from clay.
    [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you.
    The Quran states that the torah is true. But it also states that humans were made from clay, and the torah states that humans were made from dust. The Quran has contradicted it’s self by stating one thing, and then stating something else. The Quran is false.

  81. on 22 May 2013 at 6:36 pm 81.michael said …

    poor a can’t afford a full name.

  82. on 22 May 2013 at 7:25 pm 82.DPK said …

    Why won’t “A” answer the question about his god? Why is he obsessed about Socrates? No one here claimed Socrates was real or wasn’t real? It doesn’t matter… no one is discussion the insanity of believing in Socrates, and no one is claiming that Socrates is going to send you to an eternity of torment for the crime of not believing in him.
    I’d suggest you try “why won’t Socrates heal amputees .com instead. The topic here is god and religion in today’s world. Focus A… did your god, according to your garden of Eden legend, KNOW that Eve would consume the fruit and be fooled by the talking snake when he put them both in the garden of Eden? Why did he do that, knowing full well with foreknowledge and certainty, what would occur?
    Why won’t you answer?

  83. on 22 May 2013 at 7:27 pm 83.Anonymous said …

    It’s over “A”. You’ve lost and you defeated yourself.

    In your latest attempt at a diversion you ended up arguing that there isn’t physical evidence for your god. OK, we agree.

    Earlier, Martin had to admit defeat when asked to provide logical proofs for the existence of this god.

    What we have now is you trying to avoid answering questions about the god you still believe in despite your and Martin’s concessions that you can’t prove he exists.

    It’s over. You have a delusional belief in an imaginary friend. You know your god isn’t real because you always run and hide when faced with the task of proving that this god is real.

  84. on 22 May 2013 at 7:43 pm 84.The messenger said …

    Thomas, tell me, what bible verses are these, and why do you refuse to list them? I have done much research trying to find this “so called verse”, and have not found it.
    I want you to answer this. Not one of you puppets. Answer me.
    <

  85. on 22 May 2013 at 7:47 pm 85.The messenger said …

    77.DPK, I gave you proof.

  86. on 22 May 2013 at 7:57 pm 86.The messenger said …

    72.michael, because they do not need them to complete GOD’s test(known as life).

    GOD gives us what we need in order to be good, kind people. And he takes away the things tat we do not need. We all have different destinies, therefore we all have different things.

  87. on 22 May 2013 at 8:10 pm 87.s0l0m0n said …

    If you don’t believe there’s (((hell))), just gaze at the sun. That”s about (((hell))). How could the atheists be so blind.

  88. on 22 May 2013 at 11:12 pm 88.alex said …

    “Show us physical proof for Socrates existence.”

    stop with your bullshit diversion. socrates is fiction, alright, you happy? before you yuck it up, apply your same standard. can you prove your god, no? guess what? bullshit. slink back in 3 days.

  89. on 23 May 2013 at 12:43 am 89.MrQ said …

    Really “a”, Socrates. That’s what you’ve got to try initiating a red herring diversion. Keeping the “you don’t know how life started” card close to the vest – to be played after all your other diversions fail. LOL!!!

    There is no proof of my biological father existing (since he was cremated) yet here I am. I cannot prove his existence nor do I care to prove Socrates existed. Likely the character Socrates was an amalgam of several different characters of the era in which they existed, just like Jayzus.

    Are you saying: Since there is no proof for Socrates/Jayzus/my dad, it logically follows that there’s no proof for the existence of a god?

    What is your unceasing fixation with Socrates anyway? Do ancient Greek philosophers (real or legendary) turn your crank?

  90. on 23 May 2013 at 1:15 am 90.A said …

    Anony the Mouse,

    It seems Butterfly and DPK ran from the question. Your track record is terrible, but maybe you can provide physical proof for Socrates? You wouldn’t expect something for God you can’t offer for Socrates would you?

    How about physical proof for Oort Clouds, Abiogenesis, Panspermia? Just pick one. We need to establish what level of physical proof is acceptable.

    Do you go to blogs and and complain to the scientist that they can’t provide proof?

    This will let us know if you are serious or just a troll.

  91. on 23 May 2013 at 1:18 am 91.A said …

    Oh no he didn’t! DIP Clause complaining about Socrates? DIP are you not Santa’s public relations man? !!!!

    LOL!!!!!

  92. on 23 May 2013 at 6:47 am 92.michael said …

    im not sure im convinced that messenger understands islam.

    but moving along.

    my friend just had a grandchild that has extreme deformities. he and his whole family are christians, and really kind ones to boot.

    for the theists in the room, why’d ya think god would give their child a horrible life threatening syndrome and destory his chances of ever living a full life?

    thanks

  93. on 23 May 2013 at 6:52 am 93.Fluttershy said …

    A said…
    Butterfly believes Socrates existed but cannot provide proof.

    Never knew you could read minds.
    Who said i believed in this man?

  94. on 23 May 2013 at 6:55 am 94.Fluttershy said …

    “Look Butterfly, you had two come to your defense. Prove them wrong. Show us physical proof for Socrates existence. In order to be true it must exist.”

    I dont see anyone here named Butterfly but whatever.

    I never claimed that he existed, therefore i dont need to prove he existed.
    You claim that god exists, so prove it, not post diversions.

  95. on 23 May 2013 at 6:58 am 95.Fluttershy said …

    “It seems Butterfly and DPK ran from the question. Your track record is terrible, but maybe you can provide physical proof for Socrates? You wouldn’t expect something for God you can’t offer for Socrates would you?”

    DPK, nor myself have no reason to answer your question, i myself never claimed he existed, and DPK doesnt have to answer as it is irrelevant.

    I would expect evidence of a all powerful all knowing all loving all seeing god.
    I would not expect evidence of a dead guy from who knows when.

    When i die, it is likely that no one will know i existed after say 200 years, you claim that god is here, and he is all powerful, so prove it.
    (my apologies for the triple post.)

  96. on 23 May 2013 at 7:33 am 96.Fluttershy said …

    “Oh no he didn’t! DIP Clause complaining about Socrates? DIP are you not Santa’s public relations man? !!!!
    LOL!!!!!”

    This makes me ponder the intelligence of A…
    (sorry for the multipost)

  97. on 23 May 2013 at 10:57 am 97.40 Year Atheist said …

    I love it when someone claims that falsification provides truth. It is the sophomore’s answer to God. And interestingly it seems prevalent in the academic atmosphere, where sophomorism is institutionalized by perpetually sophomoric professors.

    It goes like this:

    I believe only that which can be proven empirically, that which is verifiable and falsifiable. God is neither of these, so I don’t believe in God.

    This statement strongly decorates the absence of real education. Because the view of reality presented is too myopic to support even empiricism. Here’s why.

    Empiricism is a functional operation that pursues the cause of material effects which are observed. It has rules: verification and the possibility of falsification. Why is “cause and effect” a legitimate pursuit? Well you might ask, but sophomores rarely do.

    Cause and Effect is a First Principle of logic and rational thought. Hume denied its validity in absolute terms, yet acknowledged its “usefulness”. First Principles are those concepts that are known to be true. They cannot be proven. So they are the base line, the foundation for logic which, in turn, forms the basis for rational thought. Here are some common First Principles; there are others, these are fundamental:

    The first is truth oriented (epistemological); the second, in parentheses, is existence oriented (ontological).

    1. If it is true, it is true. (If it exists, it exists)
    [“Tautology”].

    2. If it true, it is not false. (If it exists, it does not not exist)
    [“Principle of Non-Contradiction”].

    3. It cannot be somewhere between true and false. (It cannot partially exist, and partially not exist)
    [“Principle of the Excluded Middle”].

    4. For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect.
    [Principle of Cause and Effect].

    5. The physical laws of the universe are consistent and persistent, and therefore can be known.
    [Rationality of the Universe]

    These are not provable; they are known true by inspection. And all rational discourse depends upon their truth. Even (gasp) empiricism and its derivative facts.

    Empiricism cannot even prove – empirically – that empiricism itself is true, for any and all cases. Empiricism relies on the Rationality of the Universe, and the principle of cause and effect, neither of which can be proven. In fact these could be falsified, and if they were, the falsification would also then apply to empiricism.

    A falsification of either Cause and Effect or of the Rationality of the Universe would indicate the presence of something akin to miracles. But miracles are denied outright by Atheists, which is thus taking the firm stance that these two First Principles cannot be falsified, although empiricism depends upon them.

    To deny the belief in any entity that cannot be falsified is therefore a self-contradiction, a non-coherence in the position necessary to sustain Atheism using this argument. It is a fallacious stance.

    The use of falsification to define Truth is falsified.

  98. on 23 May 2013 at 11:37 am 98.the Messenger said …

    92.michael, his particular test on earth did not include living like other people.

    He will go to heaven. I am sure of it.

  99. on 23 May 2013 at 11:39 am 99.the messenger said …

    92.michael, islam is bad.

  100. on 23 May 2013 at 11:40 am 100.the messenger said …

    52.michael, here are the reasons.

    The lies of Mohammad

    I say on to you people now, the Quran is unholy and false.

    Here is the proof that will compel you to believe the statement above.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Indeed, those who disbelieve – it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe.)
    This appalling, verse compels people to loose faith in non believers. It states that nonbelievers cannot be taught the truth. This is an appalling, disgusting lie. All people can be compelled to believe in the truth: but he Quran states that they cannot be helped. The Quran compels people to loose faith in others. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.)
    As you now see, the Quran depicts God as a wrathful, unforgiving lunatic. This is wrong. God is not wrathful of hateful; but the Quran depicts him as a cruel tyrant. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. (In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.)
    The Quran states that instead of showing mercy and forgiving sinners, Allah will increase their evil and punish them for it. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse. [But] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.
    Instead of trying to help corrupt people become better, the Quran depicts that GOD mocks them mocks them, instead of helping them. The Quran is false.

    The Quran states the following verse.
    Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see.
    Deaf, Dum, and blind – so they will not return [to the right path].
    The Quran says that GOD will take away any chance of redemption. It says that GOD will not help those people. Instead of helping them, the Quran states that GOD will abandon them. The Quran is false.
    The Quran states the following verses.
    I design for you from clay.
    [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.] which were sent down before you.
    The Quran states that the torah is true. But it also states that humans were made from clay, and the torah states that humans were made from dust. The Quran has contradicted it’s self by stating one thing, and then stating something else. The Quran is false.

  101. on 23 May 2013 at 12:15 pm 101.Anonymous said …

    In case anyone is wondering, he is known as the 40Y asshole for a reason. Ignore him, all he posts are logical fallacies and circular arguments.

  102. on 23 May 2013 at 1:41 pm 102.michael said …

    what part of it is circular?

  103. on 23 May 2013 at 5:20 pm 103.Anonymous said …

    :::In order to debate you must have a position. No atheist here on this forum anyway, ever supports any position.:::

    Sure we do. We support reality. And we don’t believe in the genocidal filth you vomit up.

    Those are positions stupid. Remember your Geddy Lee: If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

    O hail Brother Geddy, he of the great wisdom of Rush.

    :::Fairly is laughable since atheist cannot define fair.:::

    1) I have a dictionary, you illiterate godbot. Why don’t you? Too busy humping your cousin to afford one?

    2) Given the hateful and UNfair behavior routinely demonstrated by you godbots, it seems you haven’t even heard of fairness.

    Thanks for playing, moron christer.

  104. on 23 May 2013 at 5:23 pm 104.Aq8 said …

    :::I believe only that which can be proven empirically, that which is verifiable and falsifiable. God is neither of these, so I don’t believe in God.

    This statement strongly decorates the absence of real education. Because the view of reality presented is too myopic to support even empiricism. Here’s why.:::

    Nope. It’s the scientific method, practiced by the PROPERLY educated, and which gave us more KNOWLEDGE and progress in 400 short years than your genocidal filth ever gave us.

    Thanks for playing. Go get a proper education, if you’re not too stupid from the toxic poisoning of genocidal filth in your already-minuscle brain.

  105. on 23 May 2013 at 7:25 pm 105.DPK said …

    Can’t believe you are actually arguing with the insane rambling of Stan, the 40 year nutcase. The impossibility of proving god’s existence proves his existence? Really?

    Hey “A”… why won’t you answer my question? I answered yours.

    Did your god, according to your garden of Eden legend, KNOW that Eve would consume the fruit and be fooled by the talking snake when he put them both in the garden of Eden? Why did he do that, knowing full well with foreknowledge and certainty, what would occur?
    Why won’t you answer? You must be very afraid of something. Don’t be fearful, I can promise you that no one here will possibly think any less of you for answering honestly.

  106. on 23 May 2013 at 8:17 pm 106.Xenon said …

    “what part of it is circular?”

    Michael none of it is circular. 40YA offers a very good analysis of the nature of proof and evidence. Reality is always dependent on empirical data. Anonymous does not understand it therefore he must denounce it rather than deal with it.

    The inability to defend the existence of Socrates fits well into what 40YA has laid out. We only have the writings of others. Yet, no sane person denies he existed.

  107. on 23 May 2013 at 8:19 pm 107.alex said …

    “Why did he do that, knowing full well with foreknowledge and certainty, what would occur?”

    because he works in mysterious bullshit ways which no mortal can ever explain, but it doesn’t stop the idiots from trying to explain it.

    “what part of it is circular?”

    the useless, pseudo/cut/paste tripe has nothing of value. the fucker cannot post in a short, succint style. check his other posts and see for yourself. he copies his content from his own heavily censored piece of shit page and righteously drops it in here. i don’t remember the moron ever writing something original, just the same old recycled shit.

    when morons cite bible passages to support their god? is this proof? i guess the santa Manual is proof that the jolly old elf is fer real?

  108. on 23 May 2013 at 8:33 pm 108.Lou said …

    God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey? Another liberal mantra, if it is hard its not worth ding.

    DPK, don’t reproduce even if you find a woman. I promise your child will disobey. Now that you know it will happen, you don’t need to have kids.

    Where is a talking snake in the Bible?

    40 year

    a very good analysis on logic and rationality. It is amusing to watch the struggle of some to understand it.

  109. on 23 May 2013 at 8:55 pm 109.alex said …

    no, dumbass. proper analogy is: if you know your kid is going to hell.

  110. on 23 May 2013 at 9:06 pm 110.DPK said …

    104.Lou said …
    “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey? Another liberal mantra, if it is hard its not worth ding.”

    Whoops, A got his socks mixed up again, replying as Lou this time… haha… this is getting old.

    Now, show me where I said “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?”
    Another example of you creating a straw man to rally against? No, what I want to know is if, according to your claims about the nature of your god, and according to the legends of your god which you have faith are TRUE… did god know exactly what would happen when he created Adam and Eve and put them in the Garden of Eden with the talking serpent and the forbidden fruit… and did these events occur EXACTLY as god planned for them to occur, or not? It’s a very simple question and you continually dodging giving a simple answer tells me that you somehow find the answer very insetting for some reason.
    Do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god or not?

  111. on 23 May 2013 at 9:29 pm 111.Lou said …

    “It’s a very simple question and you continually dodging giving a simple answer tells me that you somehow find the answer very insetting for some reason.”

    DPK/alex/Anoymous

    The fact you call out puppets so often leads me to believe you are one. This is typical is psychotics. Maybe this is why you cannot keep straight who you speak to. Thus, I want to address all you personality (disorders).

    I answered the question, but you have not answered yours. Oh, let me add man has free will. There, that is how I understand it. When you answer your questions we can move on.

    God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?

    God lays down one rule yet he is unfair?

    Where is a talking snake in the Bible?

    The questions are mounting. Are you incapable of simple answers? Oh, Sorry, another question.

  112. on 23 May 2013 at 10:39 pm 112.DPK said …

    “Do you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god or not?”

    ” man has free will.”

    Ok, we are getting somewhere. So that would be a “No”. God is not omniscient because if man has free will, then god cannot know what he will do with that free will.

    “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?”

    Seeing as how I do not believe a god created man, this would be a silly thing for me to say, no? Again, show me where I said this, or admit you made it up.

    “God lays down one rule yet he is unfair?”
    If things happened according to the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent god, then yes, it would be unfair for god to punish man for behaving exactly as god planned for him to behave. If an engineer designs a car so the wheels fall off… is it the car’s fault when the wheels fall off, or the engineers. But now you seem to be saying that your god is kind of a bumbling fuck-up god, and really had no idea what kind of shit he would be unleashing when he created man and put him in the garden with the forbidden fruit. Kind of like a parent that leave his 3 year old in a room with a loaded gun on the table and then says its not his fault the kid shot himself because he told him not to play with the gun. The parent it innocent because he had no idea what the child would do, right?
    That just leaves the question of why you would worship a fuck up god like that…??

    “Where is a talking snake in the Bible?”
    Genesis describes a serpent talking to Eve… maybe messenger will come by to tell us it was a metaphorical serpent. Whatever… does it matter? The question is your god is either the engineer of everything that happened, or he is a bumblefuck screw up.

    Which is it… and which sock am I talking to now?

  113. on 23 May 2013 at 11:44 pm 113.alex said …

    “God should not have created a man because he knew they would disobey?”

    no. your turn. does god know what is to happen?

    “God lays down one rule yet he is unfair?”

    no. your turn. does god know that the rule will be broken?

    “Where is a talking snake in the Bible?”

    nowhere. your turn. how old is the earth?

  114. on 24 May 2013 at 12:09 am 114.alex said …

    “The questions are mounting.”

    list them all, motherfucker. i’ll answer them all.

  115. on 24 May 2013 at 12:54 am 115.michael said …

    i wonder why god goes to such great lengths to hide himself. i mean, he acts like any other previous god that have been abandoned. Zeus. Allah. Yahweh. Spock. Pretty peculiar.

  116. on 24 May 2013 at 2:01 am 116.CastBound said …

    “For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect”

    Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.

  117. on 24 May 2013 at 2:04 am 117.DPK said …

    I appear to be in “awaiting moderation” purgatory. Didn’t want Lou/A to think I was ignoring him. My direct answers will appear eventually, unlike his.

  118. on 24 May 2013 at 2:21 am 118.DPK said …

    on 24 May 2013 at 2:01 am 112.CastBound said …
    “For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect”
    Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.

    Sigh…. What was the cause of your god then? If every effect must have a cause, then your god must have one, no?

  119. on 24 May 2013 at 11:11 am 119.A said …

    “Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.”

    Cast,

    The Atheists attempt to massage this away. They say idiotic things like the human body is not well designed and anything is possible given enough time.

    In other words they deny everything we observe in the real world and claim just they opposite happened for origins. Anything to deny the obvious.

    Meanwhile Butterfly has been proven wrong again. Apparently something can exist with no physical proof. Socrates, Oort clouds and logic just to name a few.

  120. on 24 May 2013 at 11:37 am 120.freddies_dead said …

    118.DPK said …

    Sigh…. What was the cause of your god then? If every effect must have a cause, then your god must have one, no?

    Don’t be silly DPK you know that God is a special case, which is why the theists will do a bit of special pleading – and throw in a relativist fallacy for good measure – in claiming that, despite everything needing a cause, their God doesn’t need one. Laughable really.

  121. on 24 May 2013 at 12:02 pm 121.freddies_dead said …

    116.CastBound said …

    “For every effect there is a cause that is both necessary and sufficient to create the effect, and which pre-existed the effect”

    Atheist deny this fact or they just remain ignorant clinging to order from chaos. Nice observation 40.

    On the contrary, it is theists who MUST deny the principle of cause and effect in order to crowbar their imaginary God into existence. If cause and effect is truly absolute then their God MUST have a cause. Of course theists simply dodge the issue when it’s pointed out to them.

  122. on 24 May 2013 at 12:53 pm 122.freddies_dead said …

    It’s always fun when 40YArsehole posts some of his pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

    Cause and Effect is a First Principle of logic and rational thought.

    It’s a what now? What the hell is this supposed to even mean?

    First Principles are those concepts that are known to be true. They cannot be proven.

    OK, but hold on as 40YArsehole is about to contradict himself quite beautifully…

    So they are the base line, the foundation for logic which, in turn, forms the basis for rational thought.

    At this point logic isn’t a “First Principle”, instead it’s founded on the “First Principles”.

    Here are some common First Principles; there are others, these are fundamental:

    The first is truth oriented (epistemological); the second, in parentheses, is existence oriented (ontological).

    1. If it is true, it is true. (If it exists, it exists)
    [“Tautology”].

    2. If it true, it is not false. (If it exists, it does not not exist)
    [“Principle of Non-Contradiction”].

    3. It cannot be somewhere between true and false. (It cannot partially exist, and partially not exist)
    [“Principle of the Excluded Middle”].

    1, 2 and 3 are, of course, the classic Laws of Logic – identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. All of a sudden they’re now “First Priciples” according to 40YArsehole, yet earlier he claimed that the First Principles were the foundation of logic. So which is it? Are the Laws of Logic “First Principles” in their own right? Or are they founded on the Principle of Cause and Effect? Either 40YArsehole isn’t sure or he’s trying to have it both ways depending on how he feels like arguing. As absurd as his “argument” is it’s entirely consistent with a purely subjective Christian worldview. It’s what we’d expect from someone who has thrown the concept of truth under a bus.

  123. on 24 May 2013 at 1:30 pm 123.DPK said …

    “Don’t be silly DPK you know that God is a special case, which is why the theists will do a bit of special pleading – ”

    Yeah, they all argue vehemently that the universe cannot simply exist, it must have a cause and that this is undeniable truth. Then they turn around and contradict their own principle and claim that god exists without a cause. But when you ask them why this principle applies to god, but cannot apply to anything else, they are strangely silent. It’s an old tired argument that gets trounced completely every time they bring it up, which is frequently.
    Now it will be time to ignore this and move onto some other “well, you can’t explain ____” argument.

  124. on 24 May 2013 at 1:37 pm 124.DPK said …

    Hey Lou… I answered every one of your questions.
    Are you ever going to answer mine?

    The question is your god is either the engineer of everything that happened, or he is a bumblefuck screw up.

    Which is it?

    You seem, after your last post, to indicate you think that god was unaware of what would happen because man has free will and god is therefore powerless. But, as usual, you are being very coy and evasive about it. How about you grow a pair and actually take a position, Lou? It’s your faith, after all, you MUST know what it is you actually believe. Why are you afraid to tell us?

  125. on 24 May 2013 at 2:22 pm 125.A said …

    Freddie

    You are dead. There is no contradiction. Lol!!!!

    Lou,

    You got that proof for Socrates yet? Lol!!!!

    If the universe can be eternal (sic), why can’t God?

    Can you find some scientist wh believe the universe can be eternal?

  126. on 24 May 2013 at 2:54 pm 126.DPK said …

    “If the universe can be eternal (sic), why can’t God?”

    God could be eternal, if he existed. The universe is here, god is not. An even bigger question is, why are you so incredibly stupid?

    You stating “there is no contradiction” isn’t an explanation, or even evidence. It’s just an empty claim.
    There certainly is a contradiction. If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause.
    If a god does not need a cause, then not everything requires a cause. Then you need to show either what caused your god, or why your special exception applies to one thing, but not other things.

    “Can you find some scientist wh believe the universe can be eternal?”
    Oh, now you are putting your faith in science? hahaha. Yes, I can find “some scientist” who believes the universe is eternal. If I did, would you believe it because “some scientist” said so? If not, why bring it up?

  127. on 24 May 2013 at 2:56 pm 127.Lou said …

    Wrong again DPK. God can know what action a man will take but allow him to make his own choice.

    Why is it unfair for God to have one rule and expect a man to obey it? Explain yourself.

    Lets try this again so you cannot slip out. IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.

    Convenient when you want to ask questions you have no problem assuming God. You see your cracks, eh?

  128. on 24 May 2013 at 3:04 pm 128.alex said …

    “Lets try this again so you cannot slip out. IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.”

    i’m your huckleberry. yes. god knew that the consequence is eternal damnation. don’t even try to mitigate it.

    how old is the earth, moron.

  129. on 24 May 2013 at 3:39 pm 129.DPK said …

    127.Lou said …

    “Wrong again DPK. God can know what action a man will take but allow him to make his own choice.”

    Nice try, nut epic fail. Knowledge requires certainty. If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice, because to do so would negate god’s knowledge. If god “knows” that tomorrow I will murder someone, then I have no choice. If I have a choice, then god cannot “know” what I will do.

    So, if god “knew” what would occur, his “one rule” is meaningless, because he gave it knowing full well it was impossible to follow. So, yes, he would bear complete responsibility.

    Sorry Lou, your irrationality is showing. I know you want to have your cake and eat it too, but here is where the shit hits the fan, and sorry, now you are covered in shit.

  130. on 24 May 2013 at 3:43 pm 130.Fluttershy said …

    “They say idiotic things like the human body is not well designed”

    The human body IS NOT well designed, if we had some DNA changes here and there, humans could live forever, not get cancer, be stronger, smarter, faster, better in general.

  131. on 24 May 2013 at 4:10 pm 131.Lou said …

    “If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice”

    Wrong again. I made a choice to type that sentence. I made the choice to do it, God knew what choice I would make. God is NOT a man which is where you fail to understand. So simple a child could understand.

    This question is still terrifying you.

    Lets try this again so you cannot slip out. IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.

    Convenient when you want to ask questions you have no problem assuming God. You see your cracks, eh?

    “he human body IS NOT well designed, if we had some DNA changes here and there, humans could live forever”

    He can’t be serious. Can you prove this? This is one on the funniest things I have read on this blog. Right up there with the dumbest things I have ever heard. How old are you Flutter?

  132. on 24 May 2013 at 4:14 pm 132.Lou said …

    “Then you need to show either what caused your god”

    Actually no one must answer this. We only need to take the atheist position. We don’t know but we will eventually. We can do that or just ignore the questions as atheists do.

    Now, prove how this universe can be eternal or how it created itself?

    Oh no DPK, stuck with your own sword.

  133. on 24 May 2013 at 4:47 pm 133.DPK said …

    131.Lou said …

    “If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice”
    “Wrong again. I made a choice to type that sentence. I made the choice to do it, God knew what choice I would make.”
    Nope sorry, you can try your special pleading, but it doesn’t work. If a god KNEW I would type the sentence then I have no choice in the matter, because to have a choice would be to negate the knowledge. So simple a child can understand.

    “IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.”
    Asked and answered. It would be wrong for god to punish man for disobeying, because it was the god who planned it that way and created him that way. If an engineer designs a car so that the wheels fall off, is it “wrong” for him to design the car? No. It would however, ve wrong for him to blame the car for the wheels coming off. It’s the designer’s fault, nit the cars. The car did what it was destined to do. So simple a child can understand.

    ““Then you need to show either what caused your god”

    Actually no one must answer this.

    Well, you do if you want to claim that everything must have a cause. Otherwise you must admit that your argument violates its own premise, so it is, as they say, bullshit. That’s for at least being honest enough to admit it, finally.

    Now, it seems you are caught in the cross hairs of at least 2 blatant and indefensible contradictions in your faith. Boy, that sucks huh? Hurry up.. time to change the subject. Hahahaha.

  134. on 24 May 2013 at 5:01 pm 134.michael said …

    i hope anyone who types the word ‘lol’ gets ass raped with the device the typed it on.

  135. on 24 May 2013 at 6:24 pm 135.40 Year Atheist said …

    I came across another description of having experienced the presence of the deity. It is nothing like the Atheists’ scornful “talking with sky-daddy”. It is not even a two-way communication of ideas in discrete human time clicks. And it is much more than a sudden realization or epiphany. There is one aspect of it that this new description provides: the experience includes what might be described as new knowledge and even a new knowledge type.

    Knowledge of the existence of a mystery beyond myself and beyond Materialism; or rather, the actual existence of something which remains mysterious to us: this is another view of having had an experience of the existence of the deity, an experience which is personal, non-replicable, non-tangible, yet as real as the experiences reached through neural transmission of sensory inputs. It is only a portion of the experience, but a necessary element of it. I repeat, it is only a portion of the experience.

    I am made completely aware that the mysterious element exists, that the element is actual. I am endowed with new knowledge which is inescapable, not a personal conclusion which is revocable.

    Atheism is a denial of the existence of that mystery. There can be no mysterious element in the Atheist worldview. Their evidence for that is merely denial and denigration of the Other; there is and can be no actual physical, replicable evidence to support their denial. The Atheist denial is a personal conclusion, without evidence for its support, a conclusion which is entirely revocable.

    The experience is more than just new knowledge, in the human sense of knowledge. It also appears as a different tool of discernment. As an Atheist I was not open to any analysis of Materialism itself; Materialism was a given, an axiom, a First Principle not to be questioned. This is at least in part because Materialism has no basis for its declaration; it is indefensible yet declared Truth. It is a religious doctrine, which is not to be subjected to the critical analysis so cherished for all other aspects of the universe.

    Atheists are content with this viewpoint. What annoys them is the persistence of those of us who have experienced more than that, outside of the restricted paradigm which materialists need to be the whole truth. Anything which threatens Materialism also threatens Atheism and all that goes along with it.

    The reason that there are so many uber-aggressive Atheists these days seems to be that the Other is a threat to the presupposed rationality of Atheism via the destruction of Materialism. So the Atheists counter-attack with Ad Hominems, False Dichotomies, Straw Men, and other non-sequiturs which they pretend is logic. The Other, they scream, is anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-women’s health, anti-minority, anti-rational. It is child abuse to suggest an openness to such knowledge to your children. Suggesting that such knowledge exists poisons everything. All wars are due to the belief in such knowledge. Poverty and environmental damage are caused by such knowledge. Such knowledge is nullified by the existence of gravity and the gratuitous extrapolations of evolutionary theory. Only fools and the demented believe in the existence of such knowledge.

    But their screams are not themselves based on valid premises and certainly not on any first principles which are logically defensible. Because a blind man has never experienced cobalt blue (one of my favorite colors) does not invalidate the existence of the experiencing of cobalt blue by other humans. Cobalt blue is not a physical actuality because it is actually a reflection of photons acting at a certain wave length. The experience itself as the color, cobalt blue, is internal and personal to each human. So there is no way that I can relate to a blind man what my experience of the color, cobalt blue, is like. There is no comparable internal reference for the blind man to use as a comparison – cobalt blue is like… So the communication between a seeing individual and a blind individual cannot include the experience of seeing cobalt blue.

    Is the blind man justified in denying the existence of the color, cobalt blue? Why would he attempt do this irrational mental jump into the abyss? The reason must be other than logic; it is based on wishfulness, a need for the color not to exist, an emotional drive to make it not exist.

    So it is with Materialism and Atheism. It is just not possible to make Atheism rational. It is possible, however, to defend it irrationally, loudly, and legally (expensive for the Other, of course). And that is the essence of aggressive Atheism.
    Posted by Stan at Thursday, May 26, 2011 43 comments: Links to this post
    Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
    Labels: Atheist Beliefs, Atheist Logic Loops and Lapses, Atheist psychology, knowledge
    Tuesday, November 16, 2010
    What do Atheists know?
    Do Atheists have evidence for their belief that there is no deity? What could possibly serve as firm, material evidence for a negative proposition such as that? If the evidentiary demands are not for physical evidence, then what sort of non-material (aka super-natural) evidence do they embrace?

    As with all things Atheist, there is no common assent to any specific philosophy or even modus operandi. Every Atheist is allowed, and is generally even proud of, his own freedom to create his own philosophy, his own ethic, his own worldview, his own reality and truth. (Well, maybe not truth, some claim that it is true that there is no truth.) In formal debate situations, Atheists will limit their admission of the possibility of real knowledge to be restricted to material, physical knowledge. This knowledge, they will say, is verifiable; no other type of proposed knowledge has this quality.

    Is verifiability a guarantee of knowledge of reality? Is it the most fundamental property of truth? If we declare that it is both the fundamental property of truth and a guarantee of knowledge of reality, how do we know that? How is that declaration verified, itself?

    The question, “how do we know that” leads to either a circular argument, an infinite regress, the need for basic foundational principles, or the concession that we can know nothing. Circular arguments and infinite regressions are unsatisfactory. Basic foundational principles are arguable, even deniable. That leaves us with the inability to know anything with any certainty at all: radical skepticism.

    Radical Skepticism exists based on the rejectability of virtually everything, due to the potential falsity of all input, including sensory (external) input that is our window to the world outside our selves. Radical Skepticism especially rejects internal sources (experiential, intuitive, reflective, abstract) which derive from our own mental activity. Let’s take some examples.

    The Problem of Evidence
    Did Bertrand Russell exist? How can I know with assurance? What is the evidence, and how is it validated?

    Direct Evidence: There is none: The existence of Bertrand Russell has reputedly ceased. But even if he were still (reputedly) alive, and we could touch and hear a person reputed to be him, that sensory input is suspect, as will be shown below.

    Indirect Evidence: There are historical accounts regarding Russell: But history is not reliable. And there are Russell’s writings: books, letters and speeches with “Bertrand Russell” attributions; but are these really written by someone called Bertrand Russell? What evidence is there that proves the validity of this evidence? An infinite regress is required here: how do validate the evidence that is used to validate the original evidence?

    Photos: Is this man Bertrand Russell? Really? For certain? Says who?
    Witness testimony is notably unreliable.

    Both sensory perceptions and internal ruminations are rejectable as potentially erroneous and flawed sources for valid information about anything to be known with certainty.

    If we can’t know anything for certain, can we Know that we can’t know anything? For certain?

    Brain in a Vat: Destruction of sensory knowledge as a valid source.

    The idea behind a Brain in a Vat is the speculation that I might exist in a false universe, one that is created and exists only in my mind. Descartes posited a meddling demon controlling our minds, while the more modern idea is that a horde of scientists are feeding my vat-bound, detached brain with all the neurological signals that make me think that I am interacting with a universe that does not actually exist. Even the date and time are false – the scientists and my actual brain exist far in the future, while my neural inputs make me think I am in the 21st century. Everything I experience is false, a fantasy simulation that is maintained by the myriad scientists feeding signals into my brain.

    How am I to prove, conclusively, that this is not the case? What evidence can I produce and submit to myself that will be adequate to invalidate this idea with absolute certainty?

    G.E. Moore raised a hand; “here is a hand”, he said, then, “here is another hand”. Moore’s point was that some things are undeniable. How is that possible? Moore could have been a brain-in-a-vat, or possibly part of my own brain-in-a-vat simulated but false experiences. What exactly determines deniability?

    Traditional concepts of evidence are wholly inadequate to vanquish this problem: there is no way to prove that the brain-in-a-vat is false. Yet we don’t believe that to be the case. I have never met anyone who thought he was a brain-in-a-vat, and that I was merely a simulation for him to experience in his brain.

    Further, there is no evidence to actually support the concept that I am, in fact, a brain-in-a-vat. It seems obvious that I am able to direct much of my experience myself. I am able to go, at will, to incredibly detailed places, such as giant stores with myriad products that I can touch and manipulate; I can trek to wilderness areas with incredible panoramas of flora, fauna, and geology; there are billions of people that I can interact with in complex modes. There seems to be a limitless unboundedness to this simulation. Plus, I have a strong sense that if my free agency does not exist, then I do not exist. I am not an automaton, performing previously established tasks. Yet I cannot prove this belief.

    Can Knowledge Exist?
    If nothing can disprove the idea that existence as I know it is really a simulation and not real at all, then how can I know anything? What is certainty, anyway? What is the nature of knowledge and how is it validated sufficiently to be allowed as an acceptable belief?

    Original Empiricism, Common Sense, and Worldview Assembly.
    Perhaps I am, in fact, living in a simulation. What can I know about it – what are the characteristics of my environment, whether simulated or real? How would the process of knowledge acquisition and validation differ from that required if I lived in actual reality?

    It would all start with observation, in either reality or simulated reality. What can I observe about the universe that is useful in helping me to understand and deal with it? Is it consistent? Is it contradictory? What elements within the universe determine my abilities to live, to think, and to cope with my environment? Observation is the original empiricism: basic knowledge is that experience which we encounter frequently enough that we grant its existence as real, or at least real enough to expect its existence and recurrence. Babies differentiate between women in general and Mommy by having experienced a relationship between the specific Mommy person and a full stomach, after having expressed the distress of the hunger experience. Observation of repetitive experiences generates expectations of consistency.

    We might come to think that the consistency that we find in our universal environment tends to discount the idea of hordes of scientists feeding us simulation data; there would surely be a rift in the consistency of such a system at some point. Even the ability to test the simulation from within the simulation, destroying pieces of it here, creating new things there, leads to discounting the idea that my universe is not real. What about creating sub-simulations? Or Meta-simulations? At what point is a fantasy disputable enough to discount it altogether, even without the ability to produce physical evidence of its non-existence? Or perhaps, at what point is it necessary to care whether I am living in a simulation or in physical reality? If one is indiscernible from the other, what does it matter, at bottom? And if this is so, then skepticism, especially radical skepticism, has no force.

    And very specifically this exercise shows that knowledge is generated by a free agent mind, through observing, cataloging and judging any and all inputs to the mind, regardless of the source. It is the faculty group within the mind, operating on experiences received by the mind, that determines what can be accepted as knowledge and what is to be rejected as fallacy. It is not the input source that makes the determination: it is the mind.

    Source of Experiences
    Along with the obvious external neural feeds from the environment, are there any other experiences that can generate knowledge? What would the source of such experiences be? For example, working a mathematical solution to proposed mathematical paradoxes: where does this experience come from, if it is not generated as a physical object (or a simulated external object)? Is it the molecular composition of nerves, or the electrochemical discharges that are producing this knowledge? Is there any reason to view molecules or electron/ion flow and declare, this will produce higher mathematics? Or empathy? Or green? Or knowledge in general?

    The brain is molecules and electron/ion flow and blood flow. It is the mind that resides on the brain that produces rational categorization of experiences which turns into knowledge.

    Locke’s hypothesis of the faculties of the mind still stand, except perhaps amongst the chronic skeptics, many of whom deny even consciousness. Locke proposed that the mind (being a blank slate in terms of original knowledge) had the faculties of apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, and comprehension. These, along with various types of memory, form an operational basis for rational assessment of one’s environment. They form an internal intellectual system for generating and validating experiences as knowledge.

    If this is so – and there is no non-chronically-skeptical reason to think it is not so – then knowledge is not determined solely by externally replicated experiences. Knowledge also comes from non-sensory sources, too.

    What are the principles used by the faculties of differentiation and judgment, and what are their sources? Do these not require the same consistency and coherence mentioned above?

    It seems that consistency and coherence are basic requirements for knowledge, for the ability to know anything and to judge its certainty. In fact, they are known as First Principles.

    I recently came across a website that, along with being Atheist, rejects Boolean logic and the First Principles. This apparently is predicated on unknowability principles that are now emplaced in mathematics, those theorems of Godel, and the intuitionist logic of Brouwer, which displaces much of standard mathematics with philosophy based on unknowability presuppositions. But these arguments cannot defeat the standard objection: if one can’t know anything for certain, then one can’t know with certainty that he can’t know anything for certain. This paradox is a logical defeater, but under the radical skepticism principles, paradoxes don’t prove anything either, since logic is unknowable or at least unprovable. So logic doesn’t exist in the world of such skeptics.

    The skeptic’s position of unknowability does not match up with observable knowledge. It is observable that the universe, whether real or simulated, is consistent in its behaviors according to physical laws; that the laws are coherent; and that we can know that, within the limits of induction. We can also know that there are limits to inductive certainty, and that with a huge number of observations of consistency, the certainty, while still not complete, is higher than the certainty of unknowability. Observations trump philosophy, when the philosophy is not congruent with observations.

    It has been observed that skeptics do not behave in a manner consistent with their philosophy. Skeptics do know that the bus is coming and they do not step in front of it in the belief that their senses are faulty. They do not step off of balconies or the edges of cliffs. They do eat food, drive cars in abeyance of the hazard of other vehicles on the road, some even have sex and raise families just as if they actually exist. This failure to behave within the belief system is pointed to as philosophical hypocrisy by dissenting philosophers of the “reality” bent.

    Yet in order for a materialist to salvage a system of beliefs which cannot be proven valid, such as Atheism, one must assert unknowability for at least some of the experiences and philosophies encountered (not his own of course).

    And there it stands, they mired in illogic while being forced to assert that there is no logic, it being unknowable. The rest of us have to proceed without them, in the knowledge that knowledge is possible, rationality is possible, it being based on fundamental principles that are observable in the universe, and which are useful in developing rational worldviews, rather than basking in non-coherence while rejecting coherence as a valid principle. It is one thing to declare oneself and ones position as being rational; it is another to define rationality, to accept its existence, and actually use rationality in creating ones position.

    Note: Some of this is based on ideas in Michael Huemer’s book, “Skepticism and the Veil of Perception”: highly recommended.

  136. on 24 May 2013 at 7:08 pm 136.Fluttershy said …

    “He can’t be serious. Can you prove this? This is one on the funniest things I have read on this blog. Right up there with the dumbest things I have ever heard. How old are you Flutter?”

    Ever heard of a water hydra? Lives forever unless something happens to it.
    Ever heard of a shark? Never gets cancer.
    Problem is that modifying genes and whatnot to that degree is pretty much impossible…
    If you believe that this is the dumbest thing you have heard, i honestly dont want to know how you think biology works…
    And yes, i am serious.
    Back on topic.
    “Actually no one must answer this. We only need to take the atheist position. We don’t know but we will eventually. We can do that or just ignore the questions as atheists do.”

    This is an atheist blog…therefore WE ask the questions and demand the answers, want to learn from us? Send us a link to a theist blog or something.

    “Now, prove how this universe can be eternal or how it created itself?”
    This question is irrelevant and impossible to answer, why you would ask it is beyond me…

  137. on 24 May 2013 at 7:20 pm 137.A said …

    Butterfly,

    You should remain silent rather than showing stupidity. Nothing built, designed or created survives forever. That does not imply bad design. No, DNA manipulation will not lead to living forever. The universe will have an end. Fearing death my little horsey?

    No, lol!!, not looking to learn from you unless it is about ponies.

  138. on 24 May 2013 at 7:53 pm 138.DPK said …

    131.Lou said …
    “If god KNOWS what action a man will take then he has no other choice” “Wrong again. I made a choice to type that sentence. I made the choice to do it, God knew what choice I would make.”

    Nope sorry, your special pleading doesn’t work. If a god KNEW I would type the sentence then I have no choice in the matter, because to have a choice would be to negate the knowledge. So simple a child can understand. Knowledge is certainty. Certainty negates choice. I cannot choose not to write the sentence because doing so would make god wrong about what he knew would happen. By the same law of logic, if a god KNEW that Eve would bite the apple, then Eve had no choice but to bite the apple. Nice try and doublethink, but epic, epic fail. Crash and burn Louie, crash and burn.

    “IF God created man would it be wrong for Him to create man knowing man would disobey.”
    Asked and answered. It would be wrong for god to punish man for disobeying, because it was the god who planned it that way and created him that way. If an engineer designs a car so that the wheels fall off, is it “wrong” for him to design the car? No. It would however, ve wrong for him to blame the car for the wheels coming off. It’s the designer’s fault, nit the cars. The car did what it was destined to do. So simple a child can understand.

  139. on 24 May 2013 at 7:56 pm 139.Fluttershy said …

    “Nothing built, designed or created survives forever.”
    HAHA.
    Well that proves how ignorant you are, as i said earlier, the water hydra (a little creature that lives in water) is biologically immortal, it doesn’t die until something eats it or it gets sick.
    “The universe will have an end.”
    I agree, i never claimed it didn’t :P
    “No, DNA manipulation will not lead to living forever.”
    Its possible, however unlikely.
    “Fearing death my little horsey?”
    You could just state my name, rather than a incorrect spelling of a particular show i watch, but yes, i do fear death, are you saying you don’t?
    “No, lol!!, not looking to learn from you unless it is about ponies.”
    The fact that you used lol in there is a tad bit…odd…
    I have plenty to teach you, you merely wont listen to the damned posts.
    Being that i havent posted any information about Mlp, i dont have much to tell people here, unless you want to learn more about it? other than that, im going to stick to the topic…

  140. on 24 May 2013 at 8:40 pm 140.michael said …

    what do you think heaven is like?

    my guess it is a lot like church.

    singing the praises of god.

    im guessing hell is more like vegas.

    gambling, sex, and magic shows.

    good people that like good things go to a good place.

    and interesting people go to an interesting place.

    the downside is all the nazi’s, but hey, ya gotta take the good with the bad.

  141. on 24 May 2013 at 9:43 pm 141.alex said …

    132.Lou said …

    blah, blah, motherfucking blah. you get your questions answered and you blah some more. go fuck yourself. until you show proof of your god……

    like you said, atheists don’t have to prove shit. again, go fuck yourself.

  142. on 24 May 2013 at 11:53 pm 142.Lou said …

    Nope wrong again DPK. Your continued ignorance on the subject will not change facts. I have multiple choices and I make a choice. God knowing what I will choose doesn’t change the fact I have a choice. With this truth your entire argument collapses and burns.
    I understand liberals hate responsibility and how much they want to blame others.

    Notice multiple uses of “Choice”. I’m sorry if
    you do not have choices. That might be best.

  143. on 24 May 2013 at 11:58 pm 143.the messenger said …

    140.michael, hell is a jail that is burning and full of terrifying creatures.

    Heaven is a place where you can truly be at peace. You can be with your friends, you family, and there is no hate or jealousy, there is only love.

  144. on 25 May 2013 at 12:18 am 144.the messenger said …

    139.Fluttershy, there was a time when I did not believe. I had lost my faith. But even then, I still did not fear death.

    I have faith in GOD, and I still do not fear death.
    Atheists fear GOD, and fear punishment for their sins. That is why they lost faith. They are cowards.

  145. on 25 May 2013 at 1:17 am 145.DPK said …

    Oh Lou.. I agree you indeed have free will and have the ability to make a choice. This is because there is no god with foreknowledge of the event.
    You can deny the logical fallacy of your statement until your brains fall out, if they haven’t already, but if your actions are already “known” then you cannot change them. Simple as that, even a child can understand. If I have a choice to do x or y, then it cannot be known if I will do x or y. If it is already known that I will do x, then I cannot possibly do y, now can I?

    Your argument collapses around you just like your delusional belief in a magical god.
    But your continued denial is very amusing, if somewhat tragic.

  146. on 25 May 2013 at 2:13 am 146.Anonymous said …

    Lou Lou with christian logic in action:

    I have multiple choices and I make a choice. God knowing what I will choose doesn’t change the fact I have a choice.

    The choices you make every day are PRE-DESTINED and play out as part of GODS PLAN for you. Simply put, the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful entity known as god has mapped out each action in advance of the event. If that is not the case, then god’s power is effectively diminished and irrelevant. The christian god knew in advance I would write this, so it must approve of my message.

  147. on 25 May 2013 at 2:24 am 147.Martin said …

    Lets examine DPK’s logic.

    A.DPK has a choice of X or Y
    B.The deity knows the choice of X or Y
    C.DPK doesn’t have the this foreknowledge
    D.DPK’s choice is limited to X

    Naturally, the logic does not follow. No man can know what the deity knows therefore Lou’s decision has not been predetermined. The deity makes options available but the foreknowledge could be X or Y.

    Secondly, we cannot know if the deity purposely decides not to have this knowledge available. This would be like parents expecting a baby but refuse to be told the gender.

    DPK’s position does not hold up.

  148. on 25 May 2013 at 2:43 am 148.DPK said …

    Of course it does.
    I can choose x or y.
    A deity knows I will choose x.
    Regardless of whether I am awarebo it or not, if I choose y, the deity’s knowledge is wrong.
    Since the deity has perfect foreknowledge, this cannot occur.
    I cannot choose y.
    Therefore, m “freedom” to choose is an illusion.
    If there is foreknowledge, ther must be certainty. If there is certainty, there can be no choice.
    Give it up. Your position is simply ridiculous.

  149. on 25 May 2013 at 3:27 am 149.DPK said …

    Perfect example of how insane the belief in an all knowing and all powerful god is. Even when faced with the absolute reality that such a thing cannot be reconciled with the idea of free will, or chance, the still try to cling to self delusion.

    Simple reality, if a deity in fact “knows” what will occur, then there can be no other possibility, and we are nothing more than puppets.

    The insanity of religious belief, illustrated.

  150. on 25 May 2013 at 11:56 am 150.michael said …

    in matthew 5 ol’ jeebis says that those ridiculed are blessed. why dont you religious assholes just sit back and take it? why do you want respect in this life and power in the next.

    you greedy fucks.

  151. on 25 May 2013 at 12:17 pm 151.alex said …

    “you greedy fucks.” granted by the almighty, bullshit god. nobody caught you with that little boy? 30 hail fucking mary’s, clean slate and do it again with a clear conscience. got caught? see the bullshit priest and reprieve is granted. you sick? modern medicine is great! didn’t work? don’t worry, god has other plans and if you pray really hard, god will hook up in heaven. right, morons?

  152. on 25 May 2013 at 12:31 pm 152.Lou said …

    Thank you Msrtin. Well illustrated.

  153. on 25 May 2013 at 1:17 pm 153.alex said …

    let’s examine martin’s/lou’s goody godly stance.

    1) how old is the earth? give or take hundreds of thousands of years.
    2) how about producing your absolute morals? we’ll test it against 10 xtians and 10 atheists and see how it does.

    of course, they won’t reply, the cowardly asses. they’d rather steer the shit towards some bullshit liberal diversion or some other atheist irrelevant shit. if nothing else, they’ll either fire up the sock engine or their cuckoo inside voices and conjure up some more atheist lies.

  154. on 25 May 2013 at 1:18 pm 154.DPK said …

    Yes Martin, ER, other Lou. Your ability to delude yourself has been very well illustrated.
    Thank you.

  155. on 25 May 2013 at 1:19 pm 155.Anonymous said …

    More christian delusion, from Martin:

    No man can know what the deity knows therefore Lou’s decision has not been predetermined. The deity makes options available but the foreknowledge could be X or Y.

    I am not exactly sure what this means “foreknowledge could be X or Y”. Maybe Martin can elaborate.

    The error is in the first sentence from the quote. Lou’s decision HAS been predetermined because the deity knows (wether it’s good or bad) what it will be. Any deviation from that and god loses his power.

    Of course, Lou approves of your christian logic. No surprise.

  156. on 25 May 2013 at 2:37 pm 156.Anonymous said …

    Lou and Martin commenting on free will is like dumb and dumber explaining physics. Now all we need is for “a” to chime in and we’ll have the three stooges.

  157. on 25 May 2013 at 2:39 pm 157.Curmudgeon said …

    The key here is the deity Has given a choice. A choice has been given to the created. The Creator knowing the results of the choice does not negate the free will to chose.

  158. on 25 May 2013 at 3:04 pm 158.DPK said …

    157.Curmudgeon said …

    “The key here is the deity Has given a choice. A choice has been given to the created. The Creator knowing the results of the choice does not negate the free will to chose.”

    Of course it does, because one can NOT choose the option that the deity knows will not occur. How stupid can you be? If the all knowing god “Knows” x will be chosen, then one cannot possibly choose y, therefore free will is impossible. You ignoring the obvious does not make it go away! hahaha… can’t even say nice try to that one, dumbass.

    “Secondly, we cannot know if the deity purposely decides not to have this knowledge available. This would be like parents expecting a baby but refuse to be told the gender.”

    Sorry Martin… it’s not like that AT ALL. What a stupid thing to say. How desperate are you to make up excuses for your delusion?
    A baby’s gender is already determined, whether the parents choose to be informed of it or not. Their knowledge of the sex of the fetus does not affect the outcome. The fetus does not have “free will: to choose to be make of female.
    Now if an all knowing deity “knows”, or CAN KNOW the child will be conceived male before conception… the child cannot possibly be female. Therefore it’s gender is predetermined. Chance plays no part.

  159. on 25 May 2013 at 4:25 pm 159.alex said …

    “A choice has been given to the created.”

    ..therefore, if the same dipshit god saves the lone trailer woman, he fucks up the rest of the park inhabitants by ignoring them, yes? what? he’s got other plans for them? then it ain’t a choice, is it?

    or your god doesn’t really bless, does he? just like a nonexistant, fucking god.

  160. on 25 May 2013 at 4:33 pm 160.Lou said …

    Cur no matter how many ways it is explained, DPK cannot grasp it. I’d suggest a book but he couldn’t grasp the content.

  161. on 25 May 2013 at 4:55 pm 161.alex said …

    no matter how many times the theist assholes get their butts handed to them, they keep coming back. god is great, motherfuckers.

  162. on 25 May 2013 at 5:25 pm 162.DPK said …

    160.Lou said …

    Cur no matter how many ways it is explained, DPK cannot grasp it. I’d suggest a book but he couldn’t grasp the content”

    Well you’re right there. No matter how many ways you try to rationalize it, your position is simply wrong.

    Put it this way, If I can choose between x and y, and your almighty god knows I will choose x, is there any conceivable scenario in which I will choose y?
    No, not without violating your god’s knowledge.
    Therefore it is NOT possible that I will choose y, yet you say I am free to do so? So, I am completely free to choose x or y, except I can only choose x. Is that how it works, Lou?

  163. on 25 May 2013 at 5:29 pm 163.DPK said …

    A perfect example of christian insanity.
    Next it will be, “god know what is best, and has decided what will be according to his divine and perfect plan. But he listen to your prayers, and will answer them.”

    You people are simply insane. There is really no other explanation.

  164. on 25 May 2013 at 5:38 pm 164.DPK said …

    161.alex said …

    “no matter how many times the theist assholes get their butts handed to them, they keep coming back. god is great, motherfuckers.”

    I’m surprised they haven’t pulled the ultimate get out of jail free card yet…. “yes, god can know what will happen AND you are free to choose what will happen because he is god and can do anything.”

    As with most theistic claims, when they debate honestly, it always ends in a train wreck for them… that’s why they are always very reluctant to give an honest answer about their beliefs, and always resort to coyness and diversion. Now it’s “Oh, DPK is too stupid to understand the concept.” Sure… that’s it wink wink…

    And the circus continues…. next on the list is the fetus that will not decide if it is male or female until it is born.

  165. on 25 May 2013 at 6:23 pm 165.DPK said …

    A hypothetical conversation with Lou:

    Me: “Lou, I don’t know if I should have pancakes or eggs for breakfast.”

    Lou: “You can choose whichever you like, and it will be the right choice because god already knows which you will choose.”

    Me: “Scrambled eggs then”

    Lou: “Good choice. God knew you would pick eggs.”

    Me: “In that case, I change my mind… pancakes.”

    Lou: “God knew you would change your mind.”

    Me: “Fuck that then, I’ll have a bagel.”

    Lou: “Ahhh… god knew you would change you mind again. See, you can’t win. Whatever you decide, god already knew it…. hahaha. And my dad can beat up your dad.”

    At which point I’d probably get a bat and beat the shit out of Lou, and then ask if god knew I was going to do that?

    hahahaha. Theism should be classified as a form of mental retardation, seriously.

  166. on 25 May 2013 at 7:06 pm 166.A said …

    DIP is an angry little guy. Frustration with his limited intellect and now lashes out with violence. Violence is part of that stellar atheist morality.

    How sad for him and those who must tolerate him.

  167. on 25 May 2013 at 7:10 pm 167.A said …

    DIP its true, you can’t win. You will never outfox God. Keep trying, maybe you will get it eventually.

  168. on 25 May 2013 at 7:17 pm 168.alex said …

    “You will never outfox God.”

    how can a non-entity be outfoxed?

    “maybe you will get it eventually.”

    how is nothing gotten?

    keep coming, you fuckheads and you will slink away as always. what? the nasty atheists persecuting your ass?

  169. on 25 May 2013 at 7:19 pm 169.alex said …

    “Violence is part of that stellar atheist morality.”

    wah! dpk is threatening me. what a fuckhead. it’s easy to apoligize for the talking donkey, but dpk, advocating violence? what a joke.

  170. on 25 May 2013 at 7:27 pm 170.DPK said …

    I said Lou would say… “And my dad can beat up your dad.”

    Instead “other Lou”, “A” replies… “DIP its true, you can’t win. You will never outfox God.”

    As predicted.

    hahaha… notice though, there is no answer to the paradox:
    ” If I can choose between x and y, and your almighty god knows I will choose x, is there any conceivable scenario in which I will choose y?”
    “How is it that it is NOT possible that I will choose y, yet you say I am free to do so? I am completely free to choose x or y, except I can only choose x. Is that how it works, Lou, uh, A, uh, Crum?

    Explain it to us. This should be good…. Maybe Socrates can explain it?

  171. on 25 May 2013 at 7:55 pm 171.DPK said …

    Hey!
    I’m just as powerful as god, and I’ll prove it.
    I know EXACTLY what Alex will type next.

    Alex… go ahead and type something, and I’ll bet you a million dollars I know exactly what you will say…..

    As soon as you post it I’ll let you know if I was right.

    D

  172. on 25 May 2013 at 8:04 pm 172.alex said …

    allahu akbar?

  173. on 25 May 2013 at 10:42 pm 173.DPK said …

    Here is what I predicted Alex would say

    “allahu akbar?”

    I got this god shit nailed. Ain’t so hard to win when you also get to make the rules!
    I should start a religion. I could sure use some tax free income!

  174. on 25 May 2013 at 10:44 pm 174.DPK said …

    Happy Memorial Day everyone.
    Don’t or get to honor the REAL hero’s who do sacrifice themselves for us every day, and give thanks to those that truly deserve it!

  175. on 25 May 2013 at 10:46 pm 175.DPK said …

    Don’t forget…. Sorry, typing on an iPad is always an adventure.
    I wonder why god didn’t fix that?

  176. on 26 May 2013 at 12:03 am 176.The Messenger said …

    145.DPK, GOD made us.

    He knows us, and what choices will make.

    We have free will because we do not know what our choices will be.

    God knows what they will be, but we do not. He does not force us to do anything, he just knows what we will do,and what we will choose to do, but he does not force it upon us.

    Stop living in denial.

  177. on 26 May 2013 at 12:34 am 177.michael said …

    if god actually existed someone would have caught a miracle on videotape. everyone and their grandmother has a phone with a camera in it. if there was any evidence at all it would have surfaced. the religious organizations would all hail it as absolute proof for their god and it would be one of the biggest discoveries of that humankind with ever make.

    instead…nothing. nada. zero.

    no god. no miracles. pray all you want. its just wishful thinking. something for those with no other recourse. enjoy your delusion.

  178. on 26 May 2013 at 1:21 am 178.Martin said …

    “someone would have caught a miracle on videotape.”

    Michael one reason is few use videotape any longer. However, what would you see on “videotape” that would be evidence?

  179. on 26 May 2013 at 1:22 am 179.Martin said …

    Thank you DPK.

  180. on 26 May 2013 at 1:36 am 180.alex said …

    “Michael one reason is few use videotape any longer.”

    context, dude, damn.

    “However, what would you see on “videotape” that would be evidence?”

    nothing too difficult for a god. levitation maybe? it’s got to be a good one, not the blaine version. just about any magician trick, but you know atheists are hard to trick. let’s turn it around. what would jesus have to do to show theists that he’s back? otherwise, he’d just be some wacko?

  181. on 26 May 2013 at 2:56 am 181.DPK said …

    “However, what would you see on “videotape” that would be evidence?”

    I’d settle for god spontaneously re growing an amputated limb. I’ll bet there are hundreds of deserving vets who would appreciate a Memorial Day miracle like that. But you KNOW that wont happen, don’t you, Martin? I mean you believe god can do it, but you know he won’t, right Martin? “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t true.”- Mark Twain

  182. on 26 May 2013 at 4:04 am 182.Anonymous said …

    Now the theist turn.

    Many religions claim some form of miracle. Martin, A, Lou, Curmudgeon etc, what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?

  183. on 26 May 2013 at 9:04 am 183.Fluttershy said …

    allah coming from space and bitch slapping all the christians ;D

  184. on 26 May 2013 at 12:05 pm 184.alex said …

    “what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?”

    to even consider answering would be blasphemous. these morons are so brainwashed, when they see questions like this, their focus just fuzz out, you know like japanese porn. this question is off limits to the idiots. however, they will do what they do, derail the shit and spout off some irrelevance.

    what’s that sound i hear? oh, no, the sock brigade is coming. put your gloves on and bust out the air fresheners! hitler, liberals, and bears, oh my.

  185. on 26 May 2013 at 1:34 pm 185.Anonymous said …

    Well the question on what would evidence would change the theist mind is right on topic. Martin’s diversion isn’t.

  186. on 26 May 2013 at 2:07 pm 186.DPK said …

    “We have free will because we do not know what our choices will be.”

    Oh! Now I recognize this. It is a common theological approach to thinking. It’s called bullshit.

    Free will has nothing to do with not knowing what our choices will be if that choice is already known.
    Answer the question.
    If I can choose freely between x and y, but a deity knows I will choose x, is there ANY possibility I will choose y? No, because if I were to choose y, that would falsify the deity’s knowledge.
    How can you claim I have the free will to choose either x or y, when you admit it is NOT POSSIBLE for me to choose the option the deity KNOWS I will not choose.
    If the deity knows I will not choose y, then I cannot be said to have a choice to choose y.

    This is inescapable logic that prevents either foreknowledge or free will. They simply cannot both exist. No way, no how. You coming here and repeatedly claiming otherwise by simply declaring it to be true only shows the depth of you delusion and insanity.

  187. on 26 May 2013 at 3:49 pm 187.michael said …

    no one uses videotape anymore.

    your a dumb motherfucker martin.

  188. on 26 May 2013 at 7:48 pm 188.Martin said …

    We have levitation and regenerating limb as proof. However this would not convince Atheists God exists This would be credited to evolution by Atheists. God knows the heart. They didn’t believe Jesus when he completed miracles and Atheists wouldn’t believe either.
    I have already seen the miracles that proves God’s existence and need no further proof. Thanks for asking. I didn’t even need Michael”s videotape.

  189. on 26 May 2013 at 8:14 pm 189.alex said …

    “They didn’t believe Jesus when he completed miracles and Atheists wouldn’t believe either.”

    so if some dude did these exact bullshit miracles you hold so dear, you would purse your lips, kiss his ass and pronounce him messiah, the redux? what would hesus have to do, for you to believe? of course, you won’t answer, you holier than thou piece of shit.

    you asked what would constitute video evidence and you scoff? tell me then, motherfucker, what should atheists accept as video evidence, since you won’t accept any answer?

  190. on 26 May 2013 at 11:25 pm 190.Anonymous said …

    “I have already seen the miracles that proves God’s existence and need no further proof.”

    Martin, please share them with us. No excuses, no diversionary questions, just share them please.

    Also, you didn’t answer this:

    “Many religions claim some form of miracle. Martin, A, Lou, Curmudgeon etc, what evidence would convince you that the claims of other religions are true?”

    What is your answer, particularly as you already have a standard by which you judge miracles according to your faith?

  191. on 26 May 2013 at 11:30 pm 191.The messenger said …

    Brother 186.DPK, free will is the ability to make a choice without someone forcing an option upon you.

    GOD does not force us to do anything. He only compels us.

    Tell me, if I were to put food in front of a starving dog, I know that the dog would eat it. I know what the dog will do. That does not mean that the dog does not have a chocie whether or not to eat it.

    The fact that I know what will happen does not mean that the dog does not have a choice, it simply means that I know how it will react under certain conditions.

  192. on 26 May 2013 at 11:36 pm 192.The messenger said …

    189.alex, I gave you proof.

  193. on 27 May 2013 at 12:49 am 193.Martin said …

    Anonymous I already know the truth so I’m good. Share my evidence? I will share the answer just like you and others share answers to questions. You just want to poke fun so go ahead.

    And as well, I don’t need your approval of my proofs just stick with your existing labels. I’m good. Why would you want me to shove my beliefs down your throat. Gotcha.

    What I will do when I have time is point out the logical fallacies when you and others present them.

  194. on 27 May 2013 at 12:56 am 194.Anonymous said …

    Martin:

    What I will do when I have time is point out the logical fallacies when you and others present them.

    Such as the concept of “free will”? How’d that go for you?

  195. on 27 May 2013 at 1:39 am 195.40 Year Atheist said …

    Sam Harris bases his argument against free will on two premises: first, there is neuroscience which shows a delay in blood flow in the brain between initiation of blood flow and the declaration of conscious recognition, from fractions of a second to 7 to 10 seconds. Second, because we are ignorant of the causal physics which produces our thoughts and actions fully formed and complete to the conscious mind, there is no freedom involved in our conscious thinking.

    These premises are exercised over and over throughout the book.

    But these premises are defective in the first place and ignore other solutions completely. This book is a rationalization of a position which Harris has chosen in advance, a position which is necessary for his Atheism and Philosophical Materialism, both of which he also exercises in the book

    The first premise is based on the concept that correlation is causation, which Harris embraces completely with no apparent realization of the logical defect, and no explanation for using it as a first principle.

    The second premise is based on the concept that the ignorance of X proves something about X: consequences of X are an illusion. More completely stated, ignorance of the source of Q proves that Q is an illusion despite universal experience of Q and material evidence for Q.

    Harris also demonstrates his ignorance of Christianity in an unjustified complaint, which is neither the case nor necessary to his argument.

    THE BOOK
    This is not, Harris says, philosophical materialism. He explains, on page 11:
    “It is important to recognize that the case I am building against free will does not depend on philosophical materialism (the assumption that reality is, at bottom, purely physical). There is no question that (most, if not all) mental events are the product of physical events. The brain is physical system, entirely beholden to the laws of nature-and there is every reason to believe that changes in its functional state and material structure entirely dictate our thoughts and actions.”
    This is fundamentally flawed from the get-go. First, he contradicts himself completely by claiming no philosophical materialism, then he makes completely materialist claims without any reasoning, any data. He makes red-flag generalizations to bolster his claim with imagined authority: “no question that”; “every reason to believe”. He has established both Philosophical Materialism and internal contradiction to be the foundation for his argument.

    And he continues on page 12:
    “But even if the human mind were made of soul-stuff, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operation of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does.”

    And this provides the basis for ignoring the possibility of a non-material mind, which initiates the neural activity which Harris will repeatedly call “mysterious”, ad nauseum. So he has established, apparently in his mind, a blockade for the defense of materialism, which he denies using.

    Harris’ principle for this book is singular and it is knowledge based. Says Harris on pg 8, after referring to the Libet, and two other fMRI brain scan experiments, discussed below:
    “Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next – a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please – your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this “decision” and believe that you are in the process of making it.”

    He continues on page 9:
    “…I, as the conscious witness of my experience, no more initiate the events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat.”
    And,

    “…even if all mental states were truly co-incident with their underlying brain states – I cannot decide what I will next think or intend until a thought or intention arises.”
    Harris proceeds to repeat these claims as if they were established fact, incorrigible and unquestionable and not Philosophical Materialist. On page 16:
    “Today, the only philosophically respectable way to endorse free will is to be a compatiblist – because we know that determinism, in every sense relevant to human behavior, is true. Unconsious neural events determine our thoughts and actions – and are themselves determined by prior causes of which we are subjectively unaware.”
    [emphasis added]

    And on page 27:
    “Cause and Effect
    In physical terms we know that every human action can be reduced to a series of impersonal events: Genes are transcribed, neurotransmitters bind to their receptors, muscle fibers contract, and John Doe pulls the trigger on the gun.”

    Determinism is the cheap leisure suit with which Philosophical Materialism dresses itself. (Note 1) Harris leaves no room for conscious decision: everything is predetermined.

    On page 25:
    “How can we be ‘free’ as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and off which we are entirely unaware? We cannot. To say that “my brain” decided to think or act in a particular way, whether consciously or not, and that this is the basis for my freedom, is to ignore the very source of our belief in free will: the feeling of conscious agency. People feel that they are the authors of their thoughts and actions, and this is the only reason why there seems to be a problem of free will worth talking about.”
    [emphasis in the original]

    And here it seems necessary to object without going further yet. No, Harris, that is not the reason there is a free will issue. The reason is that the denial of free will is used as a foundational brick in the establishment of Atheism. That is the reason that the New Atheists, now including Harris, are fighting the free will battle: because if there is truly agency which is not deterministic, then there is more to humans and the universe than determinism and materialism and Atheism can account for. Free will MUST be defeated, in order to maintain the Atheist and Materialist narrative.

    Harris repeats his single thought on virtually every page. He tries to drive it home on page 32:
    “As we have begun to see, however, this feeling of freedom arises from our moment-to-moment ignorance of the prior causes of our thoughts and actions. The phrase “free will’ describes what it feels like to identify with certain mental states as they arise in consciousness. Thoughts like ‘What should I get my daughter for birthday? I know – I’ll take her to a pet store and have her pick out some tropical fish’ convey the apparent reality of choices, freely made. But from a deeper perspective (speaking both subjectively and objectively), thoughts simply arise unauthored and yet author our actions”.
    And on page 40 he makes what appears to be a conclusion:
    ”What I will do next, and why, remains a mystery – one that is fully determined by the prior state of the universe and the laws of nature (including the contributions of chance). To declare my ‘freedom’ is tantamount to saying, ‘I don’t know why I did it, but it’s the sort of thing I tend to do, and I don’t mind doing it.”
    Harris has defined the equivalent of an internal homunculus which controls our every action, thought and intention, and then lets us know what was decided outside of our conscious reach. I don’t know why I did it: I have no free will. Only Harris calls the homunculus a “mystery”, and he refers to this mystery on almost every subsequent page. We have this mystery, he says so we have no freedom of our own; every thought and intent has to be predetermined by the universe and chance, purely because we don’t understand this mystery.

    Harris has pushed the agency (new redefinition of deterministic vs fatalistic) back into the mysterious, homunculus zone of the brain – out of our “self” and onto the mysterious Other which inhabits our neurons without our knowledge or control. Yet it is within us, it acts like it is us acting, it deludes us into thinking that we are doing it, thinking it, creating it, responsible for it ourselves. But the self is a delusion too; we are not the actors. We are merely the librarian storing the records, the Boswell to Johnson (neither of whom had agency either, of course), the hobo along for the ride, looking out the side door, not knowing where we are going but remembering where the boxcar has taken us before.

    Harris never mentions that the mystery might in fact be based on non-causal correlation, which is done by non-instrumentation of the actual phenomena being discussed: the mystery might, in actual fact, not even exist. And further investigation will likely produce information on mental processes which are not even considered in the simplistic model which Harris and the neuroscientists are using in their current apologetics.

    But WAIT! On page 42 Harris takes a new turn:
    “There is no question that human beings can imagine and plan for the future, weigh competing desires, etc. – and that losing these capacities would greatly diminish us. External and internal pressures of various kinds can be present or absent while a person imagines, plans and acts – and such pressures determine our sense of whether he is morally responsible for his behavior. However, these things have nothing to do with free will”
    [emphasis added]

    What? Humans can consciously imagine and plan and act? Really?

    Harris has previously defined free will and now re-defines it in light of obvious human agency. Now he defines free will as requiring knowledge of the psychological cause of his behavior, page 43:
    “However, when I look for the psychological cause of my behavior, I find it utterly mysterious”.

    Well, it is now becoming clear that his inability to explain his own psychology leads him to conclude that he cannot make intentional decisions and to affect causal actions based on those decisions. He concludes that chapter with this:
    “- you cannot account for your decision either. You will do whatever it is you do, and it is meaningless to assert that you could have done otherwise.”

    So he has it both ways here. IF/Because he cannot account for the origin of the neural activity, which remains a homuncular mystery to him, THEN he concludes that you will do whatever is predetermined for you to do, without any conscious control or ability to change what you do (it’s already done for you). Except as he also claims, humans can consciously “imagine, plan and act”.

    This is completely dependent upon Philosophical Materialism and the denial that the mind might be other than previous electron positions in the universe, and might in fact cause the neural activity in the first place.

    But that would seem to contradict the “science” Harris quotes. Does it? And does it matter? Harris is comfortable with contradictions, even in the same paragraph.

    What about Libet? Libet’s experiment is now thought of as merely a first attempt, without providing accuracy in instrumentation; the response was measured externally, on the skin. An explanation of the Libet experiment is found here (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html), complete with a timing clock.

    Additional experiments are noted by Harris, and many of them are subliminal tests which measure the subject’s response to very short visual exposures. These are claimed to show that there is mental processing of inputs which is not conscious. Surprisingly enough, Dennett points out that the short exposure might be consciously recognized and then forgotten with the same speed, so that there is no direct causal interpretation of this correlation. Neither Harris nor Dennett appears to recognize any timing difficulty in measuring the first microsecond that conscious recognition occurs. Merely reporting the event of conscious recognition incurs significant delay, itself, and is unaccounted for because it cannot be accurately measured. After all, consciousness seems to occupy much of the entire brain.

    In fact, most, if not all, of these types of “neural science” depend upon correlation in order to “prove” causation. This is necessary, at least at this point in the science, because there is no direct instrumentation which can be connected to the “conscious awareness” in order to determine the exact time of awareness. While some researchers warn against this flaw, others publish papers claiming fact based on correlation alone; Harris refers to the latter.

    Moreover, other correlates are ignored, such as related activity in other portions of the brain which are activated at only sub-threshold levels in terms of increased blood flow (a poor correlate in itself)(Note 2), so that there actually is no understanding of the full mental process. Further, what is being measured is stimulus – response, without acknowledging the full process of rational determination, which necessarily includes comparison with other acquired knowledge (requires a memory search), differentiation between cases, judgment based on a rule set which must be accessed, and refiling into a related memory location. Much less understood is the spontaneous generation of creative, original thoughts. None of these are measured, or even acknowledged as necessary to the making of an intentional decision.

    So not only is the instrumentation not on the right correlate, it doesn’t measure actual mental processing.

    Most glaring is the unanswered issue of how it is that the subconscious mind might be induced to make abstract decisions, create abstract thoughts previously unthought, causally produce action which can be carried out only by the conscious, but parasitic, mind, not to mention why consciousness is there at all given that everything is done subconsciously with the conscious mind merely receiving notice that it was done already.

    This is dismissed as “mystery” by Harris. And if there is mystery, “then,” he asks, “where is the freedom in that?” Why not admit that X exists by universal experience, even if the neurological discharge is still a mystery.

    But those questions are just the start of the hard questions surrounding free will, questions which, if answerable and answered, might turn determinism on its head.

    Why is the dream-world irrational? Is the rational homunculus asleep? Why is consciousness required in order for rationality to be instituted into mental activity? Given that consciousness merely receives information after the fact, why doesn’t determinism work the same without consciousness as it does during consciousness?

    How does determinism of atomic and electron placement clear back to the origin of the universe predict rational intellect? Or is there no rational intellect, purely because of determinism? Why do Harris and Dennett etc. need to make a distinction between complete determinism and “fatalism”, unless they need a hole in their argument to allow for the actuality of agency, even if agency is within the environmental and psychological constraints to which an individual is subject? If “freedom” is an illusion, then why is the distinction – strained as it is – necessary, or even logical, given the abjurance of fatalism and the existence of choice but not freedom?

    And if there is the onerous delay required to initiate action and then conscious recognition of the action, why do carpenters have fingers remaining on their hands? If there is no synchronicity between physical reality and conscious perception of reality, then power tools would be lethal and unusable. There would be no chance to perform any delicate manual procedure consciously. If there are delays, the world would have moved on without waiting for our illusion to appear. We would be “living” some indeterminate time behind the real, physical world. Do we believe that this is actually the case, and if so why? Merely to satisfy Philosophical Materialism, an internally non-coherent ideology?

    Harris says on page 46,
    “Our interests in life are not always served by viewing people and things as collections of atoms – but this doesn’t negate the truth or utility of physics”.

    Physics, Harris says, (or at least some tests somewhere) overrules our personal experience: a philosophical Materialistic and Scientistic statement which Harris follows on the same page with this:
    “A creative change of inputs to the system – learning new skills, forming new relationships, adopting new habits of attention – may radically transform one’s life”.

    This statement of conscious agency is a direct contradiction of his prior statement, and the book is full of similar direct contradictions. Full. For example, two pages later in a new chapter on Moral Responsibility, Harris makes this observation:
    “Judgments of responsibility depend upon the overall complexion of one’s mind, not on the metaphysics of mental cause and effect”.

    By complexion he means, apparently, the prior states; by metaphysics Harris means, apparently, agency;. This is verified by his position that justice cannot assign guilt when there is no conscious agency. This contradicts the prior statement just above, which attributes agency to changing one’s life around.

    And he blames the current justice system for retributive punishment rather than realignment, ignoring the fact that removal from society is the only “punishment” given for almost all moderately serious infractions these days. And even Harris agrees that removal from society is necessary, introducing another contradiction still.

    And by page 56, Harris cannot resist an attack on religion, specifically Christianity:
    “Few concepts have offered greater scope for human cruelty than the idea of an immortal soul that stands independent of all material influences, ranging from genes to economic systems. Within a religious framework, a belief in free will supports the notion of sin – which seems to justify harsh punishment not only in this life but eternal punishment in the next. And yet, ironically, one of the fears attending our progress in science is that a more complete understanding of ourselves will dehumanize us.”

    Harris’ misunderstanding of Christianity is dwarfed only by his misunderstanding of world history. First, the most massive cruelties of history were endured very recently, historically, and were administered by Atheist regimes – Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro; and the psycho regime of Aryan-Nordic-NAZIism. Moreover, the idea of separating criminals is not just a religious premise. And Atheists have no belief in eternal life, so they cannot be threatened by “eternal punishment” in a next life which doesn’t exist. Strike one.

    While the concept of sin, which is actually the concept of personal responsibility for one’s actions, is supported by free will, it is not free will that generated it. But if there is total determinism as the Atheists wish it to be understood, then there is no personal responsibility for anything, whether good or bad. And that is the greatest scope possible for human cruelty.
    Strike two.

    Finally, Christians are not afraid of actual, factual, disciplined, empirical science; it was invented by Christians, and Christians populate industrial R&D where non-ideological science is done successfully. But what is being done more and more is scientism, unsupported by actual disciplined, replicable, falsifiable, objective empiricism. And this is done in academia where results and consequences do not exist, and ideology can corrupt without repercussions. And even Michael Shermer, the Atheist celebrity Skeptic, has termed the fMRI investigations to be the equivalent of phrenology. The categorical, conclusive-types of “studies”, and declarations of “fact” to which the Atheist authors want to apply to non-falsifiable subjects should be anathema to anyone who values valid data provided by disciplined and rigorous empiricism rather than ideology.
    Strike three.

    What Harris has delivered is breathless ideology based on his one single idea, ( based on two fallacies) which is that, given determinism, IF the cause of neural firing or even prior history electron placement is not known, THEN there is no freedom to attach to human will, which therefore is an illusion. This is entirely non sequitur, with the conclusion in no way dependent upon the antecedent, and the antecedent not even being a piece of knowledge which could even conceivably prove the conclusion.

    Finally, Harris makes the astonishing claim that accepting the lack of free will has made him more moral: more empathetic because of his new understanding that people really can’t help what they do. On page 62, for example, he makes this claim:
    “How much credit does a person deserve for not being lazy? None at all. Laziness, like diligence is a neurological condition. Of course, conservatives are right to think that we must encourage people to work at the best of their abilities and discourage free riders wherever we can. And it is wise to hold people responsible for their actions when doing so influences their behavior and brings benefits to society. But this does not mean that we must be taken in by the illusion of free will. We need only acknowledge that efforts matter and that people can change.”

    How many contradictions are contained within that single sub-paragraph? Laziness and diligence are predetermined and not created; but free riders are loafers and must be addressed. People are totally predetermined and not free agents, but if held responsible they can change their behaviors. Free will is an illusion, but “efforts matter” and “people can change” even though their conscious world is totally deterministic.

    Even further it is entirely dependent upon Philosophical Materialism being exactly true, an assertion which is noncoherent in itself (note 3).

    CONCLUSION
    Harris is far from an objective source for information which might reflect on his ideology. He is rather an apologist for his ideology who rationalizes, trying to justify his Atheism and Philosophical Materialism. In his rush to support his ideology, he accepts fallacies and contradictions and questionable science without question.

    Especially disturbing are the glowing endorsements from professors of philosophy on the back cover. The attachment to ideology over logic is palpable.

    I truly resent having to spend money on this book, especially now after reading it, even more than before. It seems that Harris’ books must be read purely because it is Harris who is writing it, and that the Atheist community will read it breathlessly and believe it uncritically, because Harris is one of them. Plus he gained considerable notoriety with his book attacking Christianity, so he is widely known and read. So if one is following Atheism, then one must know what sort of apologetics Harris is pumping out now.

    Not all Atheists buy into Harris’ attempts to justify Scientism and his personal version of logical positivism. Massimo Pigliucci has long been a foe of both scientism and Harris. And evolutionary biologist Austin Hughes stings Harris in his article in New Atlantis. But Harris is a charter member of the inbred New Atheists, who give each other awards and pimp each other’s new books. So of course he gets high marks from the usual suspects. The New Atheists have created nearly as many Atheists as the Catholic church.

  196. on 27 May 2013 at 2:01 am 196.Anonymous said …

    Well Martin, I appreciate that your reply contained less fallacies than normal, and you did address part of the subject – thank you, but tu quoque with a sprinkling of ad hominem, really?

    Anyway, let’s examine Martin’s “Logic”

    Martin has proof that his god exists
    Martin is not willing to share that proof (*)
    Atheists are wrong to reject these secret proofs of god’s existence
    Therefore god exists

    Yeah, real sharp logic that you have going for you there.

    It’s even more hypocritical that Martin claims knowledge of gods that he won’t share in a forum specifically set up to explore those subjects. Instead, Martin throws a hissy fit when people won’t answer his off-topic diversions; diversions designed to hinder this blog’s purpose.

    I also notice that you keep ignoring the question regarding the “proofs” of other religions. Let’s be honest here.

    Martin, like most believers it’s quite likely that your bar for evidence to support your religion is trivially low and the one for other religions is impossibly high. That’s why you think we would make fun of you, yet the question was asked with earnest intent.

    But prove me wrong. If you have seen miracles then those should be inexplicable and beyond question. Of course, it could be that what you call a miracle is different to what you’d accept as a miracle if claimed by a different religion.

    Or you could simply be lying.

  197. on 27 May 2013 at 3:29 am 197.The messenger said …

    on 26 May 2013 at 11:30 pm 191.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Brother 186.DPK, free will is the ability to make a choice without someone forcing an option upon you.
    GOD does not force us to do anything. He only compels us.
    Tell me, if I were to put food in front of a starving dog, I know that the dog would eat it. I know what the dog will do. That does not mean that the dog does not have a chocie whether or not to eat it.
    The fact that I know what will happen does not mean that the dog does not have a choice, it simply means that I know how it will react under certain conditions.

  198. on 27 May 2013 at 3:31 am 198.Martin said …

    Anonymous you must learn how to analyze logic if you desire to provide an analysis

    1. Martin has proof for God
    2. Martin finds his proofs to be satisfactory
    3. Martin has no need for 3rd party verification.
    4. Martin lives happily with God’s existence.
    5. Martin leaves atheists frustrated.

    If you would like proofs for God to argue against just pick one of the stand bys you typically use. That should be fun for you.

    I apologize for the ad homenim. Your sensitivity was not anticipated. I don’t use those familiar to you from the atheist community like MF or F*.

    If you give me proofs from Buddhism I will give you proofs for these other religions. Would this encompass both of us offering proofs for Buddhism???

  199. on 27 May 2013 at 7:03 am 199.Fluttershy said …

    “We have levitation and regenerating limb as proof. However this would not convince Atheists God exists This would be credited to evolution by Atheists.”

    First off, no matter how you try to make a human levitate, via evolution, it is impossible.
    Secondly, while i have to give it to you with regenerating limbs being from evolution, rapid regeneration like we are after is impossible by complex organisms.

    “If you would like proofs for God to argue against just pick one of the stand bys you typically use. That should be fun for you.”

    We aren’t look to argue, we are looking to debate, learn and be given evidence of god, which so far has given us zilch…

    “1. Martin has proof for God
    2. Martin finds his proofs to be satisfactory
    3. Martin has no need for 3rd party verification.
    4. Martin lives happily with God’s existence.
    5. Martin leaves atheists frustrated.”

    So you are dooming us all to the eternal fire and pain of hell?
    Thats not nice from a christian, tell no lies and what not.

  200. on 27 May 2013 at 8:28 am 200.michael said …

    martin.

    please name the person who recieve limb regeneration.

    thanks.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply